Services on Demand
Journal
Article
Indicators
- Cited by SciELO
- Access statistics
Related links
- Similars in SciELO
Share
Perinatología y reproducción humana
On-line version ISSN 2524-1710Print version ISSN 0187-5337
Abstract
AZCARRAGA-DE LARA, César Raul; FERNANDEZ-CARROCERA, Luis A and YLLESCAS-MEDRANO, Eucario. Nasopharyngeal ventilation versus nasal continuous positive airway pressure as rescue ventilatory method: Preliminary report. Perinatol. Reprod. Hum. [online]. 2013, vol.27, n.4, pp.222-228. ISSN 2524-1710.
Objective: To compare the nasal continuous positive airway pressure and nasopharyngeal ventilation. Methods: Randomized clinical trial that included all infants admitted at the Neonatal Intensive Care Unit of the INPer, who had respiratory distress and required ventilatory support. In total were included 28 neonates, divided into two groups, the first with 12 patients with nasopharyngeal ventilation, and the second with 16 neonates in nasal continuous positive airway pressure. Inclusion criteria: Infants with respiratory distress and respiratory automatism that required ventilatory support. Exclusion criteria: Nasal pathology, major congenital malformations, neuromuscular disorder, air leak syndrome, previous abdominal surgery or intestinal disease. Study variables: gestational age, weight, days of life, underlying disease, prior ventilatory support method of ventilation, days of application, indications, complications, rate of success. We used descriptive statistics and for comparison of the groups χ2 or Mann-Whitney U. Results: The group with nasopharyngeal ventilation had nine preterm hypotrophic neonates; the group in nasal continuous positive airway pressure had six preterm hypotrophic neonates. At the moment of admission to the study all the neonates were in phase I of ventilation. The predominant indication of ventilation at the nasopharyngeal ventilation group was apnea, and respiratory distress for nasal continuous positive airway pressure group. Nasopharyngeal ventilation failed in five patients (41.6%) and three (18.7%) in nasal continuous positive airway pressure group, without statistical difference.
Keywords : Nasal continuous positive airway pressure; nasopharyngeal ventilation; apnea; respiratory distress.