Trial reportEuropean journal of pediatrics2026
Non-invasive high-frequency oscillation ventilation versus nasal CPAP as primary respiratory support in preterm neonates ≥ 30 weeks with RDS: a non-inferiority randomized controlled trial.
Trial report in European journal of pediatrics, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The purpose of this study is to evaluate if non-invasive high-frequency oscillation ventilation (NHFOV) is non-inferior to nasal continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) as primary non-invasive respiratory support (NRS) in preterm neonates of ≥ 30 weeks' gestation with respiratory distress syndrome (RDS). In this open-label randomized controlled trial (RCT) with a non-inferiority design conducted in a lower middle-income country, 142 preterm neonates were randomized to receive NHFOV (n = 71) or CPAP (n = 71) at equivalent pressures after lung recruitment with nasal mask (NM) interface. A non-inferiority margin of 20% was pre-specified and a two-sided 90% confidence interval (CI) standardly used in non-inferiority trials was chosen. For the outcome treatment failure (requirement of an alternate NRS as rescue), the event rate was 4.2% in both groups, risk difference (RD) with 90% CI being 0.00 (- 0.06 to + 0.06), and that for IMV requirement was - 0.01 (- 0.04 to 0.01). Since upper limits of CIs for both primary outcomes were well below the non-inferiority margin, NHFOV was proven to be non-inferior compared to CPAP. Duration of primary NRS was significantly lesser (median difference (MD) (95% CI), 7 h lesser (- 14 to 0); p = 0.03) and ventilator-free days for primary NRS were significantly higher (MD (95% CI), 0.30 days (0.00 to 0.60); p = 0.02) in the NHFOV group.
conclusionIn preterm neonates of ≥ 30 weeks' gestation with RDS, NHFOV delivered through NM at equivalent pressures is non-inferior to CPAP when used as primary NRS. The finding of shorter NRS duration with NHFOV needs to be proven in adequately powered trials. Use of NM interface with equivalent pressures addresses the lacunae in the current literature on NHFOV and provides a rigorous comparison between the two NRS modes.
trial registrationwww.ctri.nic.in , id CTRI/2024/10/074939, registered on 8 October 2024. WHAT IS KNOWN: • CPAP as initial respiratory support for preterm neonates with RDS is the standard of care in LMICs. • NHFOV is more efficacious than CPAP when used as a post-extubation respiratory support modality, evidence for the same being uncertain when used as primary support. WHAT IS NEW: • NHFOV is non-inferior to CPAP as primary support in preterm neonates ≥ 30 weeks with RDS for the outcomes of treatment failure and IMV requirement with equivalent pressures after lung recruitment and nasal mask interface. • A superiority design RCT comparing these two non-invasive respiratory support modalities in this subgroup of preterm neonates may not be feasible. The low baseline event rate of IMV necessitates an impractically large sample size to achieve adequate power.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41876901What 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.