A comparison of two nasal continuous positive airway pressure interfaces--a randomized crossover study

Area of Science:

• Neonatal respiratory support
• Medical device comparison
• Pulmonary medicine

Background:

• Limited research guides the selection of nasal prongs for neonatal continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP).
• Nasal CPAP is widely used for respiratory support in newborns.

Purpose of the Study:

• To compare the effectiveness of the Fisher & Paykel Healthcare (FPH) neonatal CPAP interface against the Hudson prong interface.
• To evaluate the ability of each interface to deliver bubble CPAP accurately.

Main Methods:

• A randomized cross-over study involving twenty newborn infants requiring CPAP.
• Infants received either the FPH or Hudson interface for 24-hour periods, with crossover between devices.
• The primary outcome measured was the delivery of CPAP within ±1 cm H2O of the set pressure.

Main Results:

• The FPH interface delivered CPAP within the target pressure range 71.8% of the time, compared to 66.5% for the Hudson interface (p=0.66).
• Median oxygen saturation in the target range was 98.2% for FPH and 97.8% for Hudson (p=0.76).
• No clinically significant differences were detected in primary or secondary outcomes between the two interfaces.

Conclusions:

• Both the Fisher & Paykel Healthcare and Hudson nasal CPAP interfaces demonstrated comparable effectiveness.
• The studied interfaces equally achieved desired bubble CPAP pressures and maintained target oxygen saturations in neonates.