[Skip to Navigation]
October 1989

Nasal Intermittent Positive-Pressure Ventilation Offers No Advantages Over Nasal Continuous Positive Airway Pressure in Apnea of Prematurity

Author Affiliations

From the Department of Newborn Medicine, Royal Alexandra Hospitals and the Department of Pediatrics, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada.

Am J Dis Child. 1989;143(10):1196-1198. doi:10.1001/archpedi.1989.02150220094026

• A prospective, randomized, crossover trial was performed to compare the efficacy of nasal intermittent positive-pressure ventilation with nasal continuous positive airway pressure in infants of less than 32 weeks of gestation. Continuous positive airway pressure was delivered at end-expiratory pressures of 4 cm H2O, while peak pressures of 20 cm H2O and end-expiratory pressures of 4 cm H2O were used during nasal intermittent positive-pressure ventilation at ventilatory rates of 20 breaths per minute. The frequency and extent of apnea and bradycardia during a 6-hour period in a patient receiving nasal continuous positive airway pressure were compared with a similar crossover period of nasal intermittent positive-pressure ventilation. Although the infants had slightly less frequent episodes of apnea per hour (0.6 ±0.7 vs 0.5 ±0.7) and bradycardia per hour (1.2 ±1.3 vs 0.9 ±1.0) during nasal intermittent positive-pressure ventilation, these differences were not significant. There were no significant differences in the severity of these events as assessed by the duration and fall in transcutaneous oxygen pressure during apnea and heart rate during bradycardia. There were no significant changes in blood gases throughout the study. Nasal intermittent positive-pressure ventilation appears to have no advantages over nasal continuous positive airway pressure in preventing apnea and does not alter gas exchange in infants of less than 32 weeks of gestation.

(AJDC. 1989;143:1196-1198)

Add or change institution