Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42920000›Full record

ReviewEuropean journal of pediatrics2026

Nasal high-frequency oscillatory ventilation as primary respiratory support in preterm infants with respiratory distress syndrome: current evidence and clinical implications.

Sumayya Hafeez, Venkateshwarlu Vardhelli, Rachana Rd, Bijan Saha, Srinivas Murki, Vineet Bhandari, Vikramaditya Dumpa

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review 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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing 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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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.

Sumayya HafeezDepartment of Neonatal-Perinatal Medicine, Mc Master University, Hamilton, ON, Canada.
Venkateshwarlu VardhelliSpecialist Neonatology, Kanad Hospital, Al Ain, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates.
Rachana RdDepartment of Neonatology, Viswabharathi Medical College & General Hospital, Kurnool, Andhra Pradesh, India.
Bijan SahaDepartment of Neonatology, Institute of Postgraduate Medical Education & Research, Kolkata, India.
Srinivas MurkiDepartment of Neonatology, Ankura Children's Hospital, L B Nagar, Hyderabad, Telangana, India.
Vineet BhandariDivision of Neonatology, Department of Pediatrics, The Children's Regional Hospital at Cooper, Camden, NJ, 08103, USA.
Vikramaditya DumpaDivision of Neonatology, Department of Pediatrics, University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, Arkansas Children's Hospital, Little Rock, AR, 72202, USA. VDumpa@uams.edu.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1112-8590

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) is the standard initial therapy for respiratory distress syndrome (RDS) and associated with failure rates of up to 50% in extremely preterm infants. Nasal intermittent positive pressure ventilation (NIPPV) has demonstrated consistent benefits over CPAP in reducing respiratory failure and intubation. Nasal high-frequency oscillatory ventilation (nHFOV) has also shown reduced treatment failure compared with CPAP, particularly in extremely preterm infants. However, direct head-to-head comparisons between nHFOV and NIPPV as primary support are lacking, and available evidence from indirect comparisons has low certainty. Both NIPPV and nHFOV represent viable advanced non-invasive ventilation options beyond CPAP, each with distinct physiological mechanisms and evidence profiles. The current evidence base supports the use of both modalities in clinical practice, but robust head-to-head randomized controlled trials comparing nHFOV and NIPPV as primary respiratory support are urgently needed to guide optimal clinical decision-making. What is Known: • CPAP is the standard first-line support for RDS but fails in up to 50% of extremely preterm infants. • Both NIPPV and nHFOV reduce treatment failure and intubation compared with CPAP. What is New: • Neither NIPPV nor nHFOV has proven superior to the other, as direct comparisons are few and of low certainty. Head-to-head RCTs of nHFOV vs. NIPPV as primary support in extremely preterm infants are urgently needed. • Modality choice should also be guided by local expertise, available equipment, and gestational age.

Indexed as

High-Frequency VentilationIntermittent Positive-Pressure VentilationRespiratory Distress Syndrome, NewbornContinuous Positive Airway PressureHumansInfant, NewbornInfant, PrematureBronchopulmonary dysplasiaNasal continuous positive airway pressureNasal high-frequency oscillatory ventilationNasal intermittent positive pressure ventilationPreterm infantRespiratory distress syndrome

Identifiers

PMID42920000

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.