These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Nasal Mask Versus Nasal Prongs for Delivering Nasal Continuous Positive Airway Pressure in Preterm Infants with Respiratory Distress: A Randomized Controlled Trial.
    Author: Goel S, Mondkar J, Panchal H, Hegde D, Utture A, Manerkar S.
    Journal: Indian Pediatr; 2015 Dec; 52(12):1035-40. PubMed ID: 26713987.
    Abstract:
    OBJECTIVE: To compare the effectiveness of nasal continuous positive airway pressure delivered by Nasal mask vs Nasal prongs with respect to continuous positive airway pressure failure. STUDY DESIGN: Randomized, controlled, open label, trial. SETTING: Tertiary care level III neonatal unit. PARTICIPANTS: 118 preterm infants-gestational age (27-34 weeks) requiring nasal continuous positive airway pressure as a primary mode for respiratory distress, who were treated with either nasal mask (n=61) or nasal prongs (n=57) as interface. PRIMARY OUTCOME: Need for mechanical ventilation within 72 h of initiating support. RESULTS: Nasal continuous positive airway pressure failure occurred in 8 (13%) of Mask group and 14 (25%) of Prongs group but was statistically not significant (RR 0.53, 95% CI 0.24-1.17) (P = 0.15). The rate of pulmonary interstitial emphysema was significantly less in the Mask group (4.9% vs. 17.5%; RR 0.28, 95% CI 0.08-0.96; P = 0.03). Incidence of moderate nasal trauma (6.5% vs 21%) (P=0.03) and overall nasal trauma (36% vs 58%) (P=0.02) were significantly lower in mask group than in the prongs group. CONCLUSIONS: Nasal continuous positive airway pressure with mask as interface is as effective as prongs but causes less nasal trauma and pulmonary interstitial emphysema.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]