T-piece resuscitation by mask vs binasal prongs.  The winner is?

T-piece resuscitation by mask vs binasal prongs. The winner is?

Who doesn’t love a good match up?! Supporting neonates in need of resuscitation after delivery has been the subject of many studies over the years. The movement has certainly been to non-invasive support with CPAP or NIPPV but some babies need some degree of support with PPV after delivery when they simply won’t breathe. Prior to intubation the rise of the t-piece resuscitator has meant that practitioners can set a PIP and PEEP and with only a finger press to deliver a tidal volume at set pressure and with the finger released provide CPAP through the same device. The only problem potentially with use of these devices is the imposed work of breathing (iWOB) which has been measured in other studies. Any device I have used has provided ventilation through a mask so imagine my surprise to come across a new device called rPAP using prongs from the original infant flow design. From the manufacturers website the company claims that their design used with either a mask or nasal prongs reduces iWOB by 92% compared to other comparable machines! Imagine my greater surprise to see a head to head RCT comparing this new device to standard t-piece resuscitators with a mask.

The Trial

A catchy title for a cool study. Comparison of Respiratory Support After Delivery in Infants
Born Before 28Weeks’ Gestational Age The CORSAD Randomized Clinical Trial
by Donaldsson S et al was just published in JAMA Pediatrics. Based on the title you can tell this was a study looking at infants < 28 weeks gestation who required resuscitation for the first 10-30 minutes of life. Initial settings were PIP of 20-25 and PEEP of 5-8 cm H2O with no use of sustained inflations.

The intervention was completed with one of three outcomes were met.

  1. Infant intubated
  2. Stable and breathing on method of support after a minimum of 10 minutes of support.
  3. At 30 minutes when respiratory support could continue as decided by the clinician without crossover allowed.

Looking at the appendices for the trial it appears that one could use either device to administer PPV or CPAP but the point of the trial was that the devices would be used to support the infants until one of the three above criteria were met. If the claims about reduced iWOB were true compared to other devices in use then one might expect to see a difference in the primary outcome of incidence of intubation or death within 30 minutes of birth.

In total there were 250 infants recruited with 127 assigned to the rPAP and the other 123 to t-piece resuscitation. The mean GA in the trial was 24.8 weeks and the baseline characteristics between groups were similar although the group randomized to the rPAP has more c-sections and more general anesthetic exposure compared to the t-piece group. Lastly, humidification of gases during resuscitation was similar between the two groups.

How Did They Compare?

It just might be that the claims of decreased iWOB might have merit. In Figure 2 below the Kaplan-Meier curves show a difference favouring the rPAP device when looking at the primary outcome. This difference was significant with 41 of 124 infants (33.1%) in the rPAP group and in 55 of 122 infants (45.1%) in the T-piece group having the primary outcome of intubation or death within the first 30 minutes of life. Moreover when looking at the adjusted odds ratio it was still significant at 0.53; 95% CI, 0.30-0.94. The incidence of intubation and death in the first 72 hours although trending towards favouring the new system did not reach statistical significance.

Finally, none of the secondary outcomes reached statistical significance which included such things as death in the delivery room, use of surfactant, or PPV in the DR.

Does it make sense?

If you had asked me to tell you prior to the study whether resuscitation with nasal prongs vs a mask would be different I would have said a mask would be better due to less leak. Turns out based on this data that I would be wrong in that guess. A look at the website though for the rPAP device indicates that it can be used with a mask or nasal prongs. It would have been nice in the study presented here to have used a mask as a third arm with the rPAP device as it leaves me wondering a bit whether it was the interface that mattered more than the type of driver used? Maybe I am wrong and by using prongs it allows the infant to have less iWOB than with a mask over the mouth and nose? Could it be that it has more to do with that that the type of driver whether it is a traditional t-piece resuscitator or the new rPAP device? Regardless, I have a suspicion that these results will resonate with people. A posting of the abstract alone has garnered a lot of attention on twitter this week so clearly this is of interest.

I don’t think there is much fault to find in this study other than my question of why they didn’t choose to have a head to head comparison with masks as well but perhaps that is for another study. I imagine we will see this approach adopted in many centres around the world as they replace their traditional t-piece resuscitators in need of replacement. I also suspect there will be many that will want a larger study before adopting this strategy to look more closely with come faith in the results at secondary outcomes in particular having to do with safety.

One thing is for certain. There will be more studies to come!

High CPAP vs NIPPV.  Is there a winner?

High CPAP vs NIPPV. Is there a winner?

A couple years back at the Canadian Pediatric Society annual meeting a discussion broke out about extubating infants to higher levels of CPAP. Conventional thinking had been to use levels between 5 – 8 cm H2O typically. I shared with the group the experience we had in Winnipeg (unpublished) of using higher levels from 9 -12 cm H2O with some degree of success in allowing earlier extubation. The group thought it was interesting but pointed out the lack of robust research in the area so were not so keen to “try it out”. Non-invasive positive pressure ventilation (NIPPV) has been used for some time in the neonatal world and has been compared to CPAP for extubation success and found to be superior as in this review Comparison of Complications and Efficacy of NIPPV and Nasal CPAP in Preterm Infants With RDS. In this review though as in others more typical CPAP levels are used so the question is whether the same efficacy would be seen with high level CPAP vs NIPPV.

Canadian Study to the Rescue

The study here is by Ahmad HA et al Comparison of High CPAP versus NIPPV in Preterm
Neonates: A Retrospective Cohort Study
and seeks to answer this question albeit in a retrospective fashion. The study is not well controlled since it is retrospective but it may be the best we have for now. Over a 3 year period the authors examined the outcomes for babies trialed on high CPAP (hCPAP of at least 9 cm H20) vs NIPPV. In each case they looked at the first episode of use. The modalities could have been used for extubation or as a primary means of support. The primary outcome was failure of the modality as defined by either intubation or change to the other strategy within 7 days. A total of 53 infants received hCPAP vs 119 NIPPV. Why the big difference? Since this was retrospective and not randomized it was up to the individual practioner which modality they wanted to try. If the majority of the unit favoured NIPPV this is why there would be such a difference. Herein lies the benefit of the primary outcome as if “conventional wisdom” was wrong and the other modality would be better then we should see a greater movement to the other strategy or more intubations in one group suggesting superiority of one vs the other.

The groups however aren’t entirely equivalent at baseline. The babies in the hCPAP group are quite a bit smaller on the one hand which would favour the NIPPV group. On the other hand there is almost a significant difference in surfactant provision for the hCPAP arm which might favour the hCPAP group. The other thing also nearing statistical significance is when the intervention was trialed. The median time is 2 days for teh NIPPV group and 7 for hCPAP suggesting one may have been used more prophylactically and the other post extubation. Different strategies might make a difference to outcome? Also no infants received MIST or INSURE and all were started on traditional lower levels of CPAP prior to surfactant.


The results tell an interesting story (I think) with the primary outcome being no different 62% in the hCPAP vs 55% with NIPPV. Looking at the patient outcomes in the figure from the paper one gets a little more detail and can surmise how people viewed the two modalities as a strategy and can see they were a bit different.

There seems to have more confidence in the unit with NIPPV as a way to prevent intubation. For those that failed hCPAP 12/33 were intubated as the next step (about a third) while the other 2/3 were trialed on NIPPV. Looking at those started out on NIPPV, 38/66 were intubated directly 58% or almost 2/3 while 28/66 were trialed on hCPAP. Of the ones trialed on hCPAP 20/28 or 71% were still intubated. Comparatively of those who were changed from nCPAP to NIPPV 11/21 were intubated or about 50%.

The authors find no difference in the primary outcome which is true. The problem of course with this analysis though is that there was no standardization with determining when one would choose to intubate. This issue can really play with the results. Let’s say for example that one Neonatologist really believes for the most part that NIPPV is the mode that can really prevent intubation more than hCPAP. It is conceivable that the reason in crossover intubations are less with NIPPV is that people were willing to tolerate a slightly higher pCO2 or a couple more apneas since they believe the modality is best and the infant will “get better soon”. On the other hand, infants already on NIPPV who are deteriorating might be intubated more readily as the attending might think “this hCPAP is a bunch of malarky”

It is worth mentioning that the incidence of air leak was no different between the two, nor was NEC or feeding intolerance from exposing the babies to such high pressures.


The study doesn’t “prove” anything. I don’t see it as a complete waste though as it does a number of things. It does show that small infants can be managed with hCPAP in NICU without any significant increase in complications. It also sets the stage for a couple future prospective trials I can see. Firstly, a trial of traditional CPAP vs hCPAP is needed as some units don’t have access to NIPPV or simply don’t use. The second is a prospective trial with clear parameters for failure between hCPAP and NIPPV.
Lastly, the authors ran the NIPPV and CPAP off ventilators in the units. The work of breathing would be potentially different with the use of devices solely designed for CPAP with fluidic flips. It would be important to use optimal devices for both modalities in such a trial and I for one can’t wait to see them.

Should CPAP be weaned or is stopping “cold turkey” the way to go?

Should CPAP be weaned or is stopping “cold turkey” the way to go?

With American Thanksgiving coming up this weekend a post about “cold turkey” seemed apropos. You can’t work in Neonatology and not be familiar with CPAP. We have learned much about this modality in the last couple decades as clinicians have moved more and more towards non-invasive support as the preferred strategy for supporting newborns regardless of gestational age. Ask a Neonatologist how they use CPAP and you will find varied opinions about how high to go and how quickly to wean. I have written about one weaning strategy before on this blog using monitor oxygen saturation histogram data to make such decisions Improve your success rate in weaning from CPAP. One question though that has often been asked is what level of CPAP is best to remove a baby from? In particular for our smallest infants who may have BPD or reduced pulmonary reserve due to lower numbers of alveoli as they continue to develop should you discontinue at +5, +4 or +3? This question is what some creative authors from Texas sought to answer in the paper being discussed today.

To Wean or Not To Wean?

Kakkilaya V et al published Discontinuing Nasal Continuous Positive Airway Pressure in Infants ≤32 Weeks Gestational Age: A Randomized Control Trial in the Journal of Pediatrics this October. The authors studied infants from 23+0 to 32+6 weeks gestational age at birth and looked at whether a strategy of discontinuing from +5 or weaning from +5 to +3 then stopping resulted in fewer failures from stoppage. Infants were recruited in two ways. Some infants were intubated with planned extubation to pressures from +5 to +8 while others were on CPAP always. The study included 226 infants or which 116 were assigned to control so had removal of CPAP at +5 if after 24 hours they met the stability criteria below. The other 110 infants reduced CPAP from +5 once every 24 hours if the same criteria were met. Reasons for restarting CPAP were also as shown below at the bottom of Table 1. If an infant failed then they went back to the level of CPAP they had been on previously when stability criteria were met. Once they had stability criteria at that level again for 24 hours the wean could resume.

Did they manage to find a difference?

Table 5 reveals the significant finding here which is that for the primary outcome there was no difference and it didn’t matter whether the infants were ventilated or not. One finding that was different was the number of neonates who failed to stop CPAP two or more times. This favoured the weaning approach. Aside from that the groups were comparable and there really wasn’t much benefit seen from one approach versus the other.

Thoughts About the Study

The study was a fairly straightforward one and although there wasn’t a significant result found there are some questions that I think we can think about.

  1. The stability criteria did not have results from histogram analysis included as a measure of stability. I can’t help but wonder if addition of this approach would have identified some infants who were actually not ready to wean. Having said that, one challenge is to come to an agreement on what a stable histogram is. Based on a survey from my own colleagues recently I would say like many things in Neonatology, we are all over the map. If this study were to be repeated using histograms for decisions on weaning some sort of agreement would be needed on what qualifies as a stable histogram.
  2. Our group has already tended to use +4 as the final weaning step for our ELBW and VLBW infants based on anecdotal experience that many of these kids if stopped at +5 will fail even when they seem to be stable. Repeating this study looking at weaning from +4 to +3 before stopping vs stopping at +4 could be interesting as well.
  3. Finally, I do wonder if the wean was too fast to show a difference. It is not uncommon practice in the smallest infants to keep them on +4 for a couple days even if it seems that the histograms would indicate the baby is ready to stop CPAP. Perhaps a weaning strategy of allowing a minimum of q48h instead of q24h would have found different results?

I do think the authors explored a great question and I would be reluctant here to “throw the baby out with the bathwater”. There is something here but based on the methodology (which I don’t think is flawed per se) I think they just couldn’t prove what I suspect is true.

Should CPAP be weaned or is stopping “cold turkey” the way to go?

Aerosolized surfactant. Can we finally do away with intubation?

I have written about non-traditional methods of providing surfactant to newborns previously. The practice of intubating a preterm infant to administer surfactant and leaving the endotracheal tube in with a slow wean of ventilation is mostly a thing of the past (at least in my units). Strategies have evolved and have seen the development of the INSURE technique, LISA methods, use of an LMA to delivery surfactant and even simple deposition into the pharynx all with variable success.

The Holy Grail

To me at least, the Holy Grail of surfactant delivery has been aerosolization. A small non randomized study was done in by Finer et al in 2010 An open label, pilot study of Aerosurf® combined with nCPAP to prevent RDS in preterm neonates. This study noted a reduction in CPAP failure with nebulized surfactant but as a pilot was not large enough to move the needle. Since then the Cochrane group weighed in and declared that there was not enough evidence to support the practice. The CureNeb group anchored by Dr. Pillow though has now published a double blind RCT entitled Nebulised surfactant to reduce severity of respiratory distress: a blinded, parallel, randomized controlled trial. It certainly sounds interesting and might help determine if the needle has indeed moved.

The Study

Poractant alfa at 200 mg/kg was used in this study and delivered via aerosolization using a vibrating membrane called the eFlow. The authors chose to look at infants from 29 0/7 to 33 6/7 weeks at birth and stratified them into two groups of 29 0/7 to 31 6/7 and 32 0/7 to 33 6/7 weeks. They estimated a need for 70 babies based on an anticipated failure rate of 30% in the control group vs 5% in the treatment group. Unfortunately, due to several reasons the study was only able to recruit 64 babies for randomization before being stopped due to the recruitment issues. The design of the study included adequate blinding with a sham procedure and there were predefined “failure criteria” necessitating intubation at the outset of the study. These criteria are acceptable to me as they are similar enough to my own practice and were:

1. FiO2 >0.35 over more than 30 min OR FiO2 >0.45 at
2. More than four apnoeas/hour OR two apnoeas requiring bag
and mask ventilation.
3. Two capillary blood gas samples with a pH <7.2 and partial pressure of carbon dioxide >65 mm Hg (or partial pressure
of carbon dioxide in arterial blood (PaCO2) >60 mm Hg if
arterial blood gas sample).
4. Intubation deemed necessary by the attending physician.

What did they find?

The primary outcome CPAP failure within 72 hours of birth was indeed different in the two groups.

CPAP failure by 72 hours
CPAP + surfactant 11/32 (34%)
CPAP 22/32 (69%)

(RR (95% CI)=0.526 (0.292 to 0.950))

Clearly the event rates were quite off from what they expected in the power calculation but given that they found a difference as opposed to no difference at all the fact that they didn’t recruit the numbers they planned is of less importance.

However, what is interesting is when they looked at the planned analysis by stratification an interesting finding emerged.

Group 1 (29 0/7 to 31 6/7)

CPAP failure by 72 hours
CPAP + surfactant 12/21 (57%)
CPAP 12/19 (63%)

(RR (95% CI)=0.860 (0.389 to 1.90))

Group 2 (32 0/7 to 33 6/7

CPAP failure by 72 hours
CPAP + surfactant 1/11 (9%)
CPAP 10/13 (77%)

(RR (95% CI)=0.254 (0.089 to 0.727))

There were a number of secondary outcomes looked at as well which may be of interest to you but as the numbers here are quite small I will not comment other than to say there was no increased incidence of complications with surfactant administration in this fashion. Also for those who ultimately failed CPAP the time when they did so was quite delayed compared to CPAP alone. Age at intubation for nCPAP failure, hours 4.9 (2.7–10.6) 11.6 (9.0–31.1) 0.008*

What can we take from this?

I believe these results are encouraging even if the study is a small one. The message I take from this study is that aerosolization of surfactant delivers some amount of product to the lungs. Those with more significant RDS or smaller lungs (those in the 29 0/7 to 31 6/7 group) may not get enough surfactant to treat their RDS sufficiently to avoid intubation. Those with less significant RDS or a larger number of alveoli get “enough” of a dose delivered to the alveoli to make a difference and avoid intubation. It is worth stressing that there can be no specific comment about using this strategy in even more immature infants as they weren’t tested. If I had to guess though, I would expect no difference given the findings in the smaller group.
As a physician responsible for transport though I am interested in the potential benefits to those born in non-tertiary centres. Many centres lack individuals with the confidence and skill to regularly place endotracheal tubes. For these centres it may be that providing nebulized surfactant could delay the time to treatment failure, allowing more time for a trained transport team to arrive. Training of course would be needed in these centres on how to administer surfactant in this way but it is an interesting concept to consider. With a near tripling of the average time to treatment failure the extra hours on CPAP would be much appreciated when weather delays or difficulty securing air assets means long delays in transport team arrivals.

To be sure this isn’t the last study of this kind but it certainly is an interesting start and one that will no doubt produce questions that will help formulate the next study design.

Can Nasal High Frequency Ventilation Prevent Reintubations?

Can Nasal High Frequency Ventilation Prevent Reintubations?

A patient has been extubated to CPAP and is failing with increasing oxygen requirements or increasing apnea and bradycardia. In most cases an infant would be reintubated but is there another way? While CPAP has been around for some time to support our infants after extubation, a new method using high frequency nasal ventilation has arrived and just doesn’t want to go away.  Depending on your viewpoint, maybe it should or maybe it is worth a closer look.  I have written about the modality before in High Frequency Nasal Ventilation: What Are We Waiting For?  While it remains a promising technology questions still remain as to whether it actually delivers as promised.

Better CO2 elimination?

For those who have used a high frequency oscillator, you would know that it does a marvelous job of removing CO2 from the lungs.  If it does so well when using an endotracheal tube, why wouldn’t it do just as good a job when used in a non-invasive way?   That is the hypothesis that a group of German Neonatologists put forth in their paper this month entitled Non-invasive high-frequency oscillatory ventilation in preterm infants: a randomised controlled crossover trial.  In this relatively small study of 26 preterm infants who were all less than 32 weeks at delivery, babies following extubation or less invasive surfactant application were randomized to either receive nHFOV then CPAP for four hours each or the reverse order for the same duration.  The primary outcome here was reduction in pCO2 with the goal of seeking a difference of 5% or more in favour of nHFOV.  Based on their power calculation they thought they would need 24 infants total and therefore exceeded that number in their enrollment.

The babies in both arms were a bit different which may have confounded the results.  The group randomized to CPAP first were larger (mean BW 1083 vs 814g), and there was a much greater proportion of males in the CPAP group.  As well, the group randomized first to CPAP had higher baseline O2 saturation of 95% compared to 92% in the nHFOV group.  Lastly and perhaps most importantly, there was a much higher rate of capillary blood sampling instead of arterial in the CPAP first group (38% vs 15%).  In all cases the numbers are small but when looking for such a small difference in pCO2 and the above mentioned factors tipping the scales one way or the other in terms of illness severity and accuracy of measurement it does give one reason to pause when looking at the results.

The Results

No difference was found in the mean pCO2 from the two groups.  As expected, pCO2 obtained from capillary blood gases nearly met significance for being higher than arterial samples (50 vs 47; p=0.052).  A similar rate of babies had to drop out of the study (3 on the nCPAP first and 2 on the nHFOV side).

In the end should we really be surprised by the results?  I do believe that in the right baby who is about to fail nCPAP a trial of nHFOV may indeed work.  By what means I really don’t understand.  Is it the fact that the mean airway pressure is generally set higher than on nCPAP in some studies?  Could it be the oscillatory vibration being a kind of noxious stimulus that prevents apneic events through irritation of the infant?

While traditional invasive HFOV does a marvelous job of clearing out CO2 I have to wonder how the presence of secretions and a nasopharynx that the oscillatory wave has to avoid (almost like a magic wave that takes a 90 degree turn and then moves down the airway) allows much of any of the wave to reach the distal alveoli.  It would be similar to what we know of inhaled steroids being deposited 90 or so percent in the oral cavity and pharynx.  There is just a lot of “stuff” in the way from the nostril to the alveolus.

This leads me to my conclusion that if it is pCO2 you are trying to lower, I wouldn’t expect any miracles with nHFOV.  Is it totally useless? I don’t think so but for now as a respiratory modality I think for the time being it will continue to be “looking for a place to happen”