Efficacy and safety of inhalation of pulmonary surfactant using vibrating mesh nebulizers combined with nasal continuous positive airway pressure in the treatment of neonatal respiratory distress syndrome
10.3760/cma.j.cn121430-20210602-00815
- VernacularTitle:经鼻持续气道正压通气与振动网格雾化吸入肺表面活性物质联合治疗新生儿呼吸窘迫综合征的疗效和安全性
- Author:
Ya GAO
1
;
Xin CHEN
;
Zhen ZHANG
;
Sehua QU
;
Xu SANG
;
Yumeng WU
;
Rui ZHOU
;
Wansheng PENG
;
Yun CHEN
;
Yue WANG
;
Feixiang ZHUO
;
Li CHEN
Author Information
1. 蚌埠医学院第一附属医院儿科，安徽蚌埠 233004
- Keywords:
Neonatal respiratory distress syndrome;
Nasal intermittent positive pressure ventilation;
Vibrating mesh atomization technology;
Pulmonary surfactant
- From:
Chinese Critical Care Medicine
2022;34(1):80-84
- CountryChina
- Language:Chinese
-
Abstract:
Objective:To investigate the efficacy and safety of nasal continuous positive airway pressure (NCPAP) combined with inhalation of pulmonary surfactant (PS) using vibrating mesh nebulizers in the treatment of neonatal respiratory distress syndrome (RDS).Methods:A prospective study was performed on premature infants with RDS admitted to the First Affiliated Hospital of Bengbu Medical College between December 2020 and June 2021. They were randomly assigned into vibrating mesh atomization technology group and intubation-surfactant-extubation (INSURE) technology group. The two groups were treated with NCPAP combined with PS. PS in the vibrating mesh atomization technology group was inhaled into the lungs by the new vibrating mesh atomization technology, while PS in the INSURE group was injected into the lungs by endotracheal tube. The pH value, arterial partial pressure of carbon dioxide (PaCO 2), oxygenation index (PaO 2/FiO 2), mechanical ventilation via endotracheal tube (MVET) demand rate, duration of respiratory support, secondary use of PS, complications, and hospital mortality were compared between the two groups. The occurrences of adverse events in the two groups were recorded. Results:A total of 42 preterm infants were finally enrolled, including 20 cases in the vibrating mesh atomization technology group and 22 cases in the INSURE technology group. There were no significant differences in blood gas analysis and PaO 2/FiO 2 before PS administration between the two groups. One hour after PS administration, blood gas analysis and PaO 2/FiO 2 were significantly improved in both groups. Compared with the INSURE technology group, the improvement of PaO 2/FiO 2 was more obvious in the vibrating mesh atomization technology group [mmHg (1 mmHg≈0.133 kPa): 198±34 vs. 173±39, P < 0.05], but no significant difference in pH value or PaCO 2 was found between the two groups. The duration of respiratory support in the vibrating mesh atomization technology group was significantly shorter than that in the INSURE technology group (hours: 96±13 vs. 120±18, P < 0.01), but there was no statistical difference in MVET demand rate [5.0% (1/20) vs. 13.6% (3/22), P > 0.05]. The incidence of periventricular-intraventricular hemorrhage (PVH-IVH) in the vibrating mesh atomization technology group was less than that in the INSURE technology group [0% (0/20) vs. 18.2% (4/22)], but no statistical difference was found ( P > 0.05). No significant differences in the secondary use rate of PS and incidence of bronchopulmonary dysplasia (BPD) or other complications were found between the vibrating mesh atomization technology group and the INSURE technology group [5.0% (1/20) vs. 9.1% (2/22), 5.0% (1/20) vs. 4.5% (1/22), both P > 0.05]. There were no deaths or serious adverse events such as pneumothorax, pulmonary hemorrhage, periventricular leukomalacia (PVL), retinopathy of prematurity (ROP), and necrotizing enterocolitis (NEC) in both groups. Conclusion:Compared with the INSURE technique, NCPAP combined with vibrating mesh atomization technology was also effective and safe in the treatment of RDS, which could significantly improve PaO 2/FiO 2 and shorten the duration of respiratory support. Thus, it was worthy of clinical popularization and application.
