Humidity during high-frequency oscillatory ventilation compared to intermittent positive pressure ventilation in extremely preterm neonates: An in vitro and in vivo observational study.

BACKGROUND: Inappropriate humidification of inspired gas during mechanical ventilation can impair lung development in extremely low birthweight (ELBW) infants. Humidification depends on multiple factors, such as the heater-humidifier device used, type of ventilation, and environmental factors. Few studies have examined inspired gas humidification in these infants, especially during high-frequency oscillatory ventilation (HFOV). Our objective was to compare humidity during HFOV and intermittent positive pressure ventilation (IPPV), in vitro and in vivo. METHODS: In vitro and in vivo studies used the same ventilator during both HFOV and IPPV. The bench study used a neonatal test lung and two heater-humidifiers with their specific circuits; the in vivo study prospectively included preterm infants born before 28 weeks of gestation. RESULTS: On bench testing, mean absolute (AH) and relative (RH) humidity values were significantly lower during HFOV than IPPV (RH = 79.4 ± 8.1% vs. 89.0 ± 6.2%, p < 0.001). Regardless of the ventilatory mode, mean RH significantly differed between the two heater-humidifiers (89.6 ± 6.7% vs 78.7 ± 6.8%, p = 0.003). The in vivo study included 10 neonates (mean ± SD gestational age: 25.7 ± 0.9 weeks and birthweight: 624.4 ± 96.1 g). Mean RH during HFOV was significantly lower than during IPPV (74.6 ± 5.7% vs. 83.0 ± 6.7%, p = 0.004). CONCLUSION: RH was significantly lower during HFOV than IPPV, both in vitro and in vivo. The type of heater-humidifier also influenced humidification. More systematic measurements of humidity of inspired gas, especially during HFOV, should be considered to optimize humidification and consequently lung protection in ELBW infants.

Patient-Ventilator Synchrony in Extremely Premature Neonates during Non-Invasive Neurally Adjusted Ventilatory Assist or Synchronized Intermittent Positive Airway Pressure: A Randomized Crossover Pilot Trial.

INTRODUCTION: Synchronization of non-invasive ventilation is challenging in extremely premature infants. We compared patient-ventilator synchrony between non-invasive neurally adjusted ventilatory assist (NIV-NAVA) using transdiaphragmatic (Edi) catheter and synchronized intermittent positive airway pressure (SiPAP) using an abdominal trigger. METHODS: This study was a monocentric, randomized, crossover trial in premature infants born before 28 weeks of gestation, aged 3 days or more, and below 32 weeks postmenstrual age. NIV-NAVA and SiPAP were applied in a random order for 2 h with analysis of data from the second hour. The primary outcome was the asynchrony index. RESULTS: Fourteen patients were included (median [IQR] gestational age at birth 25.6 (25.3-26.4) weeks, median [IQR] birth weight 755 [680-824] g, median [IQR] postnatal age 26.5 [19.8-33.8] days). The median (IQR) asynchrony index was significantly lower in NIV-NAVA versus SiPAP (49.9% [44.1-52.6] vs. 85.8% [74.2-90.9], p < 0.001). Ineffective efforts and auto-triggering were significantly less frequent in NIV-NAVA versus SiPAP (3.0% vs. 32.0% p < 0.001 and 10.0% vs. 26.6%, p = 0.004, respectively). Double triggering was significantly less frequent in SiPAP versus NIV-NAVA (0.0% vs. 9.0%, p < 0.001). No significant difference was observed for premature cycling and late cycling. Peak Edi and swing Edi were significantly lower in NIV-NAVA as compared to SiPAP (7.7 [6.1-9.9] vs. 11.0 [6.7-14.5] µV, p = 0.006; 5.4 [4.2-7.6] vs. 7.6 [4.3-10.8] µV, p = 0.007, respectively). No significant difference was observed between NIV-NAVA and SiPAP for heart rate, respiratory rate, COMFORTneo scores, apnoea, desaturations, or bradycardias. DISCUSSION/CONCLUSION: NIV-NAVA markedly improves patient-ventilator synchrony as compared to SiPAP in extremely premature infants.