Comparação da pronga e máscara nasal na ventilação não invasi va em prematuros: uma revisão de literatura
Contenido principal del artículo
Resumen
Introdução: O suporte ventilatório realizado em prematuros pode ser invasivo (através de uma via área artificial); ou de modo não invasivo, através de interfaces que preservam a via aérea fisiológica Objetivo: Verificar a segurança e eficácia da utilização da máscara nasal comparada à pronga nasal, em relação à falha da VNI, ocorrência
de trauma nasal, tempo de suporte não invasivo e ocorrência de displasia broncopulmonar (DBP). Fonte de dados: Foram incluídos no estudo artigos publicados nos últimos dez anos nas bases de dados indexadas em PubMed/Medline, SciELO, Lilacs e Cochrane, utilizando as principais palavras-chave e seus respectivos descritores em inglês. Síntese dos dados: Foram encontrados cinco artigos internacionais, que compararam a pronga nasal e máscara nasal, mostrando a redução de lesão de trauma nos prematuros e redução de falha da ventilação não invasiva. Conclusão: A máscara nasal apresenta-se como uma alternativa promissora, pois se comporta de forma similar à pronga nasal (em relação a parâmetros de sinais vitais), ou superior a esta quando se considera trauma nasal e de face, o que diminui a exposição do prematuro a eventos dolorosos, que são considerados deletérios para o desenvolvimento extrauterino de seu sistema nervoso central.
Descargas
Detalles del artículo
Esta obra está bajo una licencia internacional Creative Commons Atribución 4.0.
Citas
1. Souse NFC, Bonfim SFSSF, Vasconcelos MGL, Bezerra JLO, Silva DVC, Leal LP. Prevalence of nasal septum injury in premature infants using nasal prongs. Esc Enferm USP, 2013;47(6):1285-90
2. Natarajan G, Shankaran S.Short- and LongTerm Outcomes of Moderate and Late Preterm Infants. AmJPerinatol. 2016 Feb;33(3):305-17. doi: 10.1055/s-0035-1571150. Epub 2016 Jan 20.
3. Afjeh SA, Sabzehei MK, Khoshnood Shariati M, Shamshiri AR, Esmaili F. Evaluation of Initial Respiratory Support Strategies in VLBW Neonates with RDS. ArchIranMed. 2017 Mar;20(3):158-164. doi: 0172003/AIM.008.
4. Levesque BM, Burnham L, Cardoza N, Adams M, Cohen R, Mirochnick M, Fujii A, Sinha B, Improving Respiratory Support Practices to Reduce Chronic Lung Disease in Premature Infants. PediatrQualSaf. 2019 Aug 9;4(4):e193. doi:10.1097/pq9.0000000000000193. eCollection 2019 Jul-Aug.
5. Flanagan KA. Noninvasive Ventilation in Premature Neonates. AdvNeonatalCare 2016 Apr;16(2):91-8. doi: 10.1097/ANC.0273.
6. DePaoli AG, Davis PG, Faber B, Morley CJ. Devices and pressure sources for administration of nasal continuous positive airway pressure (NCPAP)in preterm neonates. CochraneDatabaseSystRev. 2008 Jan 23;(1):CD002977. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD002977.pub2.
7. Trevisanuto D, Grazzina N, Doglioni N, Ferrarese P, Marzari F, Zanardo V. A new device for administration of continuous positive airway pressure in preterm infants: comparison with standard nasal CPAP continuous positive airway pressure system. Intensive Care Med. 2005 Jun;31(6):859-64. Epub 2005 Apr 19.
8. Antunes JCP, Nascimento MAL, Gomes AVO, Araujo MC. Instalação do CPAP nasal: identificando a dor do recém-nato como um cuidado de enfermagem. Rev Enferm UFPE. 2010 jan-mar.;4(1):142-48.
9. Ota NT, Davidson J, Guinsburg R. Early nasal injury resulting from the use of nasal prongs in preterm infants with very low birth weight: a pilot study. Revista Brasileira de Terapia Intensiva 2013;25:245-250.
10. Bonfim SFSF, Vasconcelos MGL, Sousa NFC, Silva DVC, Leal LP. Lesão de septo nasal em neonatos pré-termo no uso de prongas nasais. Rev. Latino-Am. Enfermagem. 2014;22(5):826-33.
11. Newnam KM, McGrath JM, Estes T, Jallo N, Salyer J, Bass WT. An integrative review of skin breakdown in the preterm infant associated with nasal continuous positive airway pressure. J Obstet Gynecol Neonatal Nurs. 2013 Sep-Oct;42(5):508-16. doi: 10.1111/1552-6909.12233. Epub 2013 Sep 4.
12 .Green EA, Dawson JA, Davis PG, DePaol AG, Roberts CT. Assessment of resistance of nasal continuous positive airway pressure interfaces. Arch Dis Child Fetal Neonatal Ed. 2019 Sep;104(5):F535-F539. doi: 10.1136/archdischild-2018-315838. Epub 2018 Dec 19.
13. DePaoli AG, Morley CJ, Davis PG, Lau R, Hingeley E. Invitro comparison of nasal continuous positive airway pressure devices for neonates. Arch Dis Child Fetal Neonatal Ed. 2002 Jul;87(1):F42-5.
14. Osman M, Elsharkawy A, AbdelHady H. Assessment of pain during application of nasal continuous positive airway pressure and heated, humidified highflow nasal cannulae in preterm infants. JPerinatol. 2015 Apr;35(4):263-7. doi: 10.1038/jp.2014.206. Epub 2014, Nov 27.
15. Yong SC, Chen SJ, Boo NY. Incidence of nasal trauma associated with nasal prong versus nasal mask during continuous positive airway pressure treatment in very low birthweight infants: a randomised control study. Arch Dis Child Fetal Neonatal Ed. 2005 Nov;90(6):F480-3. Epub 2005 Jun 7.
16. Kieran EA, Twomey AR, Molloy EJ, Murphy JF, O'Donnell CP. Randomized trial of prongs or mask for nasal continuous positive airway pressure in preterm infants. Pediatrics. 2012,130(5):e1170-6.
17. Goel S, Mondkar J, Panchal H,Hegde D, Utture A,Manerkar S, Nasal Mask Versus Nasal Prongs for Delivering Nasal Continuous Positive Airway Pressure in Preterm Infants with Respiratory Distress: A Randomized Controlled Trial. Indian Pediatr. 2015,52(12):1035-40.
18. Say B, Kanmaz Kutman HG, Oguz SS, Oncel MY, Arayici S, Canpolat FE, Uras N, Karahan S. Binasal Prong versus Nasal Mask for Applying CPAP to Preterm Infants: A Randomized Controlled Trial. Neonatology. 2016;109(4):258-64.
19. Chandrasekaran A, Thukral A, Jeeva Sankar M, Agarwal R, Paul VK, Deorari AK. Nasal masks or binasal prongs for delivering continuous positive airway pressure in preterm neonates-a randomised trial. Eur J Pediatr. 2017;176(3):379-386.
20. Bashir T, Murki S, Kiran S, Reddy VK, Oleti TP. 'Nasal mask' in comparison with 'nasal prongs' or 'rotation of nasal mask with nasal prongs' reduce the incidence of nasal injury in preterm neonates supported on nasal continuous positive airway pressure (nCPAP): A randomized controlled trial. PLoS One. 2019,14(1):e0211476.
21. Brix N, Sellmer A, Jensen MS, Vad Pedersen L, Henriksen TB. Predictors for an unsuccessful Intubation-Surfactant-Extubation procedure: a cohort study. BMC Pediatrics. 2014,14:155.
22. Wright CJ, Sherlock LG, Sahni R, Polin RA. Preventing Continuous Positive Airway Pressure Failure: Evidence-Based and Physiologically Sound Practices from Delivery Room to the Neonatal Intensive Care Unit. Clin Perinatol. 2018 Jun;45(2):257-271.
23. Ottinger D, Hicks J, Wilson S, Sperber K, Power K. The Pressure Is On: Neonatal Skin and Nasal Continuous Positive Airway Pressure. Adv Neonatal Care. 2016;16(6):420-423.
24. Hogeling M, Fardin SR, Frieden IJ, Wargon O. Forehead pressure necrosis in neonates following continuous positive airway pressure. Pediatr Dermatol. 2012;29(1):45-8.
25. Tauzin M, Durrmeyer X. Managing neonatal pain in the era of non-invasive respiratory support. Semin Fetal Neonatal Med. 2019 Aug;24(4):101004.
26. Xie LH. Hydrocolloid dressing in preventing nasal traumasecondary to nasal continuous positive airway pressure in preterm infants. World J Emerg Med. 2014;5(3):218-22. doi: 10.5847/wjem.j.1920-8642.2014.03.011.
27. Tracy MK, Berkelhamer SK. Bronchopulmonary Dysplasia and Pulmonary Outcomes of Prematurity. Pediatr Ann. 2019;48(4):e148-e153.
28. Celik M, Bulbul A, Uslu S, Dursun M, Guran O, Kıray Bas E, Arslan S, Zubarioglu U. A comparison of the effects of invasive mechanic ventilation/surfactant therapy and non-invasive nasal-continuous positive airway pressure in preterm newborns. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2018 Dec;31(24):3225-3231.
29. Niemarkt HJ, Hütten MC, Kramer BW. Surfactant for Respiratory Distress Syndrome: New Ideas on aFamiliar Drug with Innovative Applications Neonatology 2017;111:408-414.
30. Jasani B, Ismail A, Rao S, Patole S. Effectiveness and safety of nasal mask versus binasal prongs for providing continuous positive airway pressure in preterm infants: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Pediatr Pulmonol. 2018;53(7):987-992.