Continuous Positive Airway Pressure versus Nasal Intermittent Positive Pressure Ventilation in Preterm Neonates: What if Mean Airway Pressures were Equivalent?

Respiratory support for preterm neonates in modern neonatal intensive care units is predominantly with the use of noninvasive interfaces. Continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) and nasal intermittent positive pressure ventilation (NIPPV) are the prototypical and most commonly utilized forms of noninvasive respiratory support, and each has unique gas flow characteristics. In meta-analyses of clinical trials till date, NIPPV has been shown to likely reduce respiratory failure and need for intubation compared to CPAP. However, a significant limitation of the included studies has been the higher mean airway pressures used during NIPPV. Thus, it is unclear to what extent any benefits seen with NIPPV are due to the cyclic pressure application versus the higher mean airway pressures. In this review, we elaborate on these limitations and summarize the available evidence comparing NIPPV and CPAP at equivalent mean airway pressures. Finally, we call for further studies comparing noninvasive respiratory support modes at equal mean airway pressures. Key Points

Continuous Positive Airway Pressure versus Nasal Intermittent Positive Pressure Ventilation in Preterm Neonates: What if Mean Airway Pressures were Equivalent? Journal Articles