[Skip to Content]
Access to paid content on this site is currently suspended due to excessive activity being detected from your IP address 54.166.74.94. Please contact the publisher to request reinstatement.
[Skip to Content Landing]
Views 229
Citations 0
Comment & Response
September 2013

Questions Concerning Nasal Intermittent Positive-Pressure Ventilation vs Nasal Continuous Positive Airway Pressure—Reply

Author Affiliations
  • 1Department of Pediatrics, Instituto de Medicina Integral Professor Fernando Figueira, Recife, Brazil
  • 2Department of Pediatrics, Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut
JAMA Pediatr. 2013;167(9):873. doi:10.1001/jamapediatrics.2013.2212

In Reply We thank Wang and Shi for their interest in our study and for drawing attention to aspects concerning the number of patients in our study. Initially, we would like to clarify that the Kugelman et al and Sai Sunil Kishore et al studies1,2 included all infants for the definition of bronchopulmonary dysplasia (BPD), while we only included the survivors to 36 weeks’ postmenstrual age. Our trial randomly assigned 100 infants in each group (nasal continuous positive airway pressure and nasal intermittent positive-pressure ventilation)3; however, at 36 weeks we only had 83 infants in the nasal intermittent positive-pressure ventilation group and 80 infants in the nasal continuous positive airway pressure group. Even if we did include all the infants, the results would be very similar (risk ratio, 0.56; 95% CI, 0.09-3.61), with no difference found between the groups and considerable heterogeneity (P = .04; I2 = 70%).

First Page Preview View Large
First page PDF preview
First page PDF preview
×