Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39985666›Full record

Trial reportEuropean journal of pediatrics2025

Non-invasive high-frequency oscillatory ventilation versus non-invasive intermittent mandatory ventilation as a rescue mode in preterm infants with respiratory distress on nasal CPAP-a randomized control trial.

R D Rachana, Tejopratap Oleti, D Saikiran, Venkateshwarlu Vardhelli, Sruthi Thiruveedi, Altaf Hussain, Prasen Reddy Tamatam

Abstract readRandomized Controlled TrialComparative Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in European journal of pediatrics, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

R D RachanaDepartment of Neonatology, Fernandez Hospital, Hyderabad, Telangana, India.
Tejopratap OletiDepartment of Neonatology, Fernandez Hospital, Hyderabad, Telangana, India. drtejopratap.o@fernandez.foundation.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4597-0978
D SaikiranDepartment of Neonatology, Fernandez Hospital, Hyderabad, Telangana, India.
Venkateshwarlu VardhelliDepartment of Neonatology, Fernandez Hospital, Hyderabad, Telangana, India.
Sruthi ThiruveediDepartment of Neonatology, Fernandez Hospital, Hyderabad, Telangana, India.
Altaf HussainDepartment of Neonatology, Fernandez Hospital, Hyderabad, Telangana, India.
Prasen Reddy TamatamDepartment of Neonatology, Fernandez Hospital, Hyderabad, Telangana, India.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

To compare NHFOV in decreasing the need for mechanical ventilation in the first 7 days of randomization in preterm infants born before 34 weeks of gestational age having nCPAP failure when used as rescue mode compared to NIMV. All eligible neonates were randomized and allocated to either NHFOV or NIMV group after taking the consent from the parents. Standardized protocol was followed on initiation, titration, weaning, and optimization of all the respiratory supports. In this study, a total of 45 neonates were eligible; among them, 20 neonates were randomized to NIMV group and 20 neonates to NHFOV group remaining 5 infants were missed due to the non-availability of a machine (n = 4) and missed randomization (n = 1). The primary outcome was need for mechanical ventilation within first 7 days of randomization in NIMV and NHFOV group was 45% and 40% (p = 0.85, OR = 1.22 (CI 0.35-4.3)). The secondary outcome was a duration of ventilation within 72 h of randomization was 40% vs. 31.6% in NIMV and NHFOV group (p = 0.58). Bronchopulmonary dysplasia was 5% and 10% in NIMV and NHFOV group with p = 0.548, OR = 0.47 (CI 0.39-5.6), and mortality was one infant in NIMV and 3 infants in NHFOV group (p = 0.568, OR = 0.29 (CI 0.02-3.1)).

conclusionNIMV and NHFOV are comparable in reducing the rates of mechanical ventilation within 72 h and within 7 days of post-randomization. Multi-centric trials with large sample sizes are required to prove the hypothesis.

trial registrationwww.ctri.nic.in id CTRI/2021/10/037681, registered on October 29, 2021. WHAT IS KNOWN: • NIMV or nHFOV being used as primary as well as post extubation respiratory support in neonates. • NIMV and nHFOV has shown better clinical outcomes than nCPAP when used as primary and post extubation respiratory support. WHAT IS NEW: • NIMV and nHFOV can be used as rescue mode after CPAP failure to prevent need for mechanical ventilation. • nHFOV appears promising as rescue mode in neonates who meets CPAP failure criteria.

Indexed as

Continuous Positive Airway PressureHigh-Frequency VentilationIntermittent Positive-Pressure VentilationNoninvasive VentilationRespiratory Distress Syndrome, NewbornFemaleHumansInfant, NewbornInfant, PrematureMaleRespiration, ArtificialTreatment OutcomeCPAP failureNasal CPAPNasal HFOVRescue modeRespiratory distress

Identifiers

PMID39985666

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.