ArticleMedical devices (Auckland, N.Z.)2022
Evaluation of Common Nasal Cannulas in Neonatal Noninvasive Ventilation (NIV) Using a Novel Neonatal Nasal Model.
Article in Medical devices (Auckland, N.Z.), 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- 3D Printing in the Fight Against Covid-19.Medical devices (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2023Article
- Outpatient Utilization of the RAM Cannula for Nasal Noninvasive Ventilation in Children.Clinical medicine insights. Pediatrics · 2023Article
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 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: Non-invasive ventilation (NIV) may reduce intubation rates and be especially beneficial in the care of preterm infants, in addition to other care modalities. Currently, ventilators do not display the pressure at the nares but the pressure in the ventilator tubing system. There are several nasal cannulas available for use to deliver NIV. The purpose of this study was to compare the inspiratory pressure on the ventilator to the measured pressure delivered at the nares using three cannula brands (Manufacturer A, Fisher & Paykel; Manufacturer B, Neotech RAM; and Manufacturer C, Hudson RCI). Patients and Methods: This bench study utilized a 3D printed nasal model, including nares in multiple sizes to accommodate all nasal prongs studied. The nasal adaptors were connected to neonatal test lungs, to simulate patient breathing. Multiple sizes of nasal cannulas from the three manufacturers were tested for inspiratory vs delivered pressure at the patient side of the cannula, using eight combinations of ventilator settings. Each nasal cannula was tested on six Puritan Bennett™ 980 ventilators. Results: The measured delivered pressure at the nares was consistently lower than the clinician-set inspiratory pressure. Across all ventilator settings, 7 of the 11 cannulas delivered significantly less pressure at the nares compared to the inspiratory ventilator pressure (p < 0.01). For each cannula, as inspiratory pressure increased, the difference between delivered and inspiratory pressures also increased. The cannula from Manufacturer B consistently demonstrated the greatest differences between set inspiratory and delivered pressures for each ventilator setting. Conclusion: This study demonstrated substantial differences between ventilator inspiratory pressure and measured delivered pressure, which may have clinical significance. Being unaware of the actual airway pressure delivered to the patient may lead to erroneous adjustments to the level of ventilator pressure, which may be especially consequential to those with delicate and developing respiratory systems.
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.