ArticleJournal of perinatology : official journal of the California Perinatal Association2012
SNIPPV vs NIPPV: does synchronization matter?
Article in Journal of perinatology : official journal of the California Perinatal Association, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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
12 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 43 citations in OpenAlex.
- Triggering modalities to synchronise non-invasive respiratory support in preterm infants: a systematic review and meta-analysis.BMJ paediatrics open · 2026Pooled it
- Noninvasive Ventilation for Preterm Twin Neonates with Respiratory Distress Syndrome: A Randomized Controlled Trial.Scientific reports · 2015Trial
- Flow-synchronized nasal intermittent positive pressure ventilation for prevention of extubation failure in neonates: a review of literature and a case series of neonates with congenital diaphragmatic hernia successfully managed with this strategy.Italian journal of pediatrics · 2025Review
- Safety of bubble nasal intermittent positive pressure ventilation (NIPPV) versus bubble nasal continuous positive airway pressure (NCPAP) in preterm infants with respiratory distress.Journal of perinatology : official journal of the California Perinatal Association · 2024Article
- Respiratory Management of the Preterm Infant: Supporting Evidence-Based Practice at the Bedside.Children (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Review
- Nasal intermittent positive pressure ventilation as a rescue therapy after nasal continuous positive airway pressure failure in infants with respiratory distress syndrome.Journal of perinatology : official journal of the California Perinatal Association · 2023Article
- Non-Invasive Ventilatory Strategies to Decrease Bronchopulmonary Dysplasia-Where Are We in 2021?Children (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Review
- Non-invasive Respiratory Support of the Premature Neonate: From Physics to Bench to Practice.Frontiers in pediatrics · 2020Review
- Bronchopulmonary Dysplasia: Chronic Lung Disease of Infancy and Long-Term Pulmonary Outcomes.Journal of clinical medicine · 2017Review
- Comparison of Complications and Efficacy of NIPPV and Nasal CPAP in Preterm Infants With RDS.Iranian journal of pediatrics · 2016Article
- Temporal quantification of oxygen saturation ranges: an effort to reduce hyperoxia in the neonatal intensive care unit.Journal of perinatology : official journal of the California Perinatal Association · 2014Article
- Risk factors for laboratory-confirmed bloodstream infection in neonates undergoing surgical procedures.The Brazilian journal of infectious diseases : an official publication of the Brazilian Society of Infectious DiseasesArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveTo compare clinical outcomes of premature infants on synchronized nasal intermittent positive pressure ventilation (SNIPPV) vs nasal intermittent positive pressure ventilation (NIPPV) in the neonatal intensive care unit. Use of NIPPV in the neonatal intensive care unit has shown promise with better clinical outcomes in premature neonates. It is not known if synchronization makes a significant clinical impact when using this technique. STUDY
designRetrospective data were obtained (1/04 to 12/09) of infants who received NIPPV anytime during their stay in the neonatal intensive care unit. SNIPPV (Infant Star with StarSync) was utilized from 2004 to 2006, whereas NIPPV (Bear Cub) was used from 2007 to 2009. Bronchopulmonary dysplasia (BPD) was defined using the NIH consensus definition. Unadjusted associations between potential risk factors and BPD/death were assessed using the χ (2) or Wilcoxon rank-sum test. Adjusted analyses were performed using generalized linear mixed models, taking into account correlation among infants of multiple gestation.
resultThere was no significant difference in the mean gestational age and birth weight in the two groups: SNIPPV (n=172; 27.0w; 1016 g) and NIPPV (n=238; 27.7w; 1117 g). There were no significant differences in maternal demographics, use of antenatal steroids, gender, multiple births, small for gestational age or Apgar scores in the two groups. More infants in the NIPPV group were given resuscitation in the delivery room (SNIPPV vs NIPPV: 44.2 vs 63%, P<0.001). Use of surfactant (84.4 vs 70.2%; P<0.001) was significantly higher in the SNIPPV group. There were no differences in the rate of patent ductus arteriosus, intraventricular hemorrhage, periventricular leukomalacia, retinopathy of prematurity and necrotizing enterocolitis in the two groups. After adjusting for the significant variables, use of NIPPV vs SNIPPV (odds ratio 0.74; 95% confidence interval: 0.42, 1.30) was not associated with BPD/death.
conclusionThese data suggest that use of SNIPPV vs NIPPV is not significantly associated with a differential impact on clinical outcomes.
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.