Trial reportIntensive care medicine2006
Does helmet CPAP reduce cerebral blood flow and volume by comparison with Infant Flow driver CPAP in preterm neonates?
Trial report in Intensive care medicine, 2006. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed, 21 citations in OpenAlex.
- Neuromonitoring in neonatal critical care part II: extremely premature infants and critically ill neonates.Pediatric research · 2023Review
- The use of head helmets to deliver noninvasive ventilatory support: a comprehensive review of technical aspects and clinical findings.Critical care (London, England) · 2021Review
- Transcriptomics of the fetal hypothalamic response to brachiocephalic occlusion and estradiol treatment.Physiological genomics · 2014Article
- CPAP review.European journal of pediatrics · 2012Review
- Year in Review in Intensive Care Medicine, 2006. III. Circulation, ethics, cancer, outcome, education, nutrition, and pediatric and neonatal critical care.Intensive care medicine · 2007Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveWe compared neonatal helmet continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) and the conventional nasal Infant Flow driver (IFD) CPAP in the noninvasive assessment of absolute cerebral blood flow (CBF) and relative cerebral blood volume changes (DeltaCBV) by near-infrared spectroscopy. DESIGN AND
settingA randomized crossover study in a tertiary referral NICU. PATIENTS AND
interventionsAssessment of CBF and DeltaCBV in 17 very low birth weight infants with respiratory distress (median age 5 days) treated with two CPAP devices at a continuous distending pressure of 4 mbar. MEASUREMENTS AND
resultsNeonates were studied for two consecutive 60-min periods with helmet CPAP and with IFD CPAP. Basal chromophore traces enabled DeltaCBV changes to be calculated. CBF was calculated in milliliters per 100 grams per minute from the saturation rise integral and rate of rise O(2)Hb-HHb. Median (range) CBF with helmet CPAP was 27.37 (9.47-48.20) vs. IFD CBF 34.74 (13.59-60.10)(p=0.049) and DeltaCBV 0.15 (0.09-0.28) with IFD and 0.13 (0.07-0.27) with helmet CPAP (NS). Using helmet and IFD CPAP, the neonates showed no difference in mean physiological parameters (transcutaneous carbon dioxide and oxygen tension, pulse oximetry saturation, heart rate, breathing rate, mean arterial blood pressure, desaturation rate, axillary temperature).
conclusionAssessing CBF and DeltaCBV measured by near-infrared spectroscopy with two CPAP devices revealed no differences in relative blood volume, but CBF was lower with helmet CPAP. Greater active vasoconstriction and/or passive capillary and/or venous vessel compression seem the most likely reason, due to a positive pressure around the head, neck, and shoulders by comparison with the airway pressure.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.