Skip to main content
NCBI home page
Children logoLink to Children
. 2023 Dec 18;10(12):1935. doi: 10.3390/children10121935

Noninvasive Neurally Adjusted Ventilation versus Nasal Continuous or Intermittent Positive Airway Pressure for Preterm Infants: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Mohammed Bhader 1,2,*, Mohammed Al-Hindi 1,2,3, Abdullah Ghaddaf 1,2, Anas Alamoudi 1,2, Amal Abualola 1,2, Renad Kalantan 1,2, Norah AlKhulifi 1,2, Ibrahim Halawani 4, Mansour Al-Qurashi 1,2,3
PMCID: PMC10741611  PMID: 38136137

Abstract

The noninvasive neurally adjusted ventilatory assist (NIV-NAVA) is a newly developed noninvasive ventilation technique with promising clinical and ventilatory outcomes for preterm infants. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to investigate whether NIV-NAVA has better clinical and ventilatory outcomes than nasal continuous airway pressure (NCPAP) or noninvasive positive pressure ventilation (NIPP) on premature infants. MEDLINE, Embase, and CENTRAL were searched, and randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared NIV-NAVA with NCPAP or NIPP for preterm infants (gestational age: <37 weeks) were included. We evaluated the following outcomes in the neonatal intensive care unit: the desaturation rate, failure of noninvasive modality requiring intubation when received as the primary mode or the need for re-intubation after extubation from mechanical ventilation in the secondary mode (weaning), length of stay, and fraction of inspired oxygen. The mean difference and risk ratio were used to represent continuous and dichotomous outcomes, respectively. We included nine RCTs involving 339 preterm infants overall. NIV-NAVA showed similar clinical and ventilatory outcomes to NCPAP or NIPP, except for the maximum diaphragmatic electrical activity. The rate of failure of the noninvasive modality was not statistically different between NIV-NAVA and NCPAP. The pooled estimates for the maximum electrical activity were significantly reduced in NIV-NAVA compared with those in NIPP. The findings suggest that NIV-NAVA may be as safe and effective as NCPAP and NIPP for preterm neonates, particularly those who may not tolerate these alternative noninvasive methods. However, further trials are recommended for greater evidence.

Keywords: preterm infants, noninvasive neurally adjusted ventilatory assist (NIV-NAVA), noninvasive ventilation, nasal continuous or positive airway pressure (NCPAP), intermittent positive airway pressure ventilation (NIPP), respiratory distress syndrome (RDS), systematic review

1. Introduction

Preterm birth is the leading cause of death worldwide in children <5 years. The World Health Organization defines prematurity in newborns as a birth occurring before 37 weeks of gestational age [1,2]. The global prevalence of preterm birth is approximately 10.6%, resulting in about 15 million live preterm births in 2014 [3]. Although the survival rate of premature infants has improved, further advances are vital to decreasing morbidity and mortality [4]. Respiratory distress syndrome (RDS) in neonates is triggered by low surfactant production and premature lungs. RDS is the leading reason for invasive ventilation in neonatal intensive care units (NICUs), although noninvasive measures are better in the form of lower ventilatory complications [5,6,7,8]. In addition to RDS, prematurity causes multiple adverse events, including bronchopulmonary dysplasia (BPD), sepsis, neurological conditions, and hearing and visual problems [9,10,11]. Although invasive ventilation and surfactant replacement can rescue newborns with RDS, the risks of BPD and lung injury may increase [12]. Hence, the European consensus recommends nasal continuous airway pressure (NCPAP) as the main modality for noninvasive ventilation in neonatal care as a primary mode [13]. Noninvasive positive pressure (NIPP) ventilation is an alternative treatment for managing RDS or to be used as a weaning mode post-extubation from mechanical ventilation [14]. NIPP may show more success in terms of prevention of post-extubation failure (re-intubation); however, it did not change the prevalence of BPD [15]. Moreover, NIPP may have a few disadvantages, including significant air leaks and the lack of synchronization with inspiratory efforts. In addition, the ventilator settings for NIPP are pressure-targeted, offering little adjustability for the variable ventilation demands of preterm neonates [16]. Noninvasive neutrally adjusted ventilatory assist (NIV-NAVA) is a recently developed mode of ventilation that utilizes the patient’s diaphragmatic electrical activity (Edi) to ensure better synchronization in and magnitude of the ventilation. Several electrodes installed on a modified intragastric feeding tube measure the Edi to determine diaphragmatic activity. The detection of infant diaphragmatic activity determines the beginning and end of inspiration to provide proportional and synchronized pressure support that depends on the newborns’ efforts. Infants ventilated using NIV-NAVA have better oxygenation and synchrony and tolerate extubation better [17,18,19,20,21,22]. Several randomized controlled trials (RCTs) compared the need for reintubation and clinical and ventilatory outcomes in infants after NIV-NAVA, NCPAP, and NIPP [23,24,25]. Additionally, two previous systematic reviews compared modality failure and other clinical and ventilatory outcomes after NIV-NAVA, NCPAP, and NIPP [26,27]. The present systematic review and meta-analysis include more studies and a larger sample size; moreover, this study was the first to produce results of the subgrouping analysis to compare NIV-NAVA to NCPAP and NIPP, depending on whether the ventilatory support was a primary or weaning modality. Here, clinical outcomes, ventilatory measures, and adverse effects are compared in infants ventilated using NIV-NAVA, NCPAP, or NIPP.

2. Study Design and Methods

The meta-analysis and systematic review were conducted following a prespecified protocol registered with PROSPERO (CRD42022342435). The report of this study was made according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis checklist [28].

2.1. Eligibility Criteria

RCTs, quasi-RCTs, cluster randomized trials, and crossover trials with the desired outcomes were included in the analysis. The crossover trials were incorporated into the meta-analysis using the methods described in the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions [29]. The inclusion criteria were as follows: preterm infants of <37 weeks’ gestational age who received noninvasive respiratory support measures, including NIV-NAVA and NCPAP or NIPP ventilation, as primary or weaning (post-extubation from mechanical ventilation) respiratory support modes. Intervention period was any time from birth until discharge, except crossover trials; the ventilation was applied for at least 30 min. The studies reported at least one of the following outcomes: failure of noninvasive modality requiring intubation when received as primary mode or the need for re-intubation after extubation from mechanical ventilation in secondary mode (weaning), duration of oxygen supplementation, length of stay in the NICU, length of hospital stay, mean time to full enteral feeding, duration of invasive ventilation, heart rate (HR), respiratory rate (RR), need for surfactant therapy, desaturation, bradycardia, pneumothorax, apnea, patent ductus arteriosus (PDA), BPD, intraventricular hemorrhage (IVH), death, sepsis, necrotizing enterocolitis, retinopathy of prematurity, fraction of inspired oxygen (FiO2), oxygenation index, positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) or CPAP level (cmH2O), Edi including maximum Edi (μV), minimum Edi (μV), and swing Edi (μV), mean pH, mean pCO2, and mean airway pressure. Non-RCT studies and infants with congenital anomalies, neuromuscular disease, diaphragmatic paralysis, or palsy were excluded from the analysis. Refer to Section S1 for definitions and more information about the population, conditions, and ventilation modes included in this study.

2.2. Search Strategy

A systematic search was conducted using MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials databases from the database inception till 26 June 2022, irrespective of the date or language. The search strategy is provided in the Supplementary Material. Refer to Section S2 for keywords used in the systematic search. Reference lists for the included RCTs were screened for related RCTs missed during the systematic search.

2.3. Study Selection and Data Extraction

The eligibility screening of titles and abstracts, full-text assessment, and data extraction from eligible trials were performed by two groups of reviewers independently and in duplicate, according to the prespecified selection criteria. Any disagreement was settled via consensus or discussion with separate field expert reviewers. The extracted data were entered into an Excel worksheet. The following data were extracted from each eligible trial: name of the first author and the year of publication, number of infants in each arm, gender, mean gestational age, mean birth weight, Apgar score at 5 min, premature rupture of membrane, cesarean delivery, and the clinical and ventilatory outcomes reported by each trial (e.g., failure of noninvasive modality requiring intubation when received as primary mode or the need for re-intubation after extubation from mechanical ventilation in weaning mode; length of stay in the NICU; duration of invasive ventilation; need for surfactant therapy; pneumothorax; Edi (μV), including maximum, minimum, and swing Edi; FiO2; PEEP; or CPAP level (cmH2O)).

2.4. Statistical Analysis

The meta-analysis was conducted using RevMan (Review Manager) version 5.3 (Cochrane Collaboration), employing a random-effects model. This study used a 95% confidence level and p < 0.05 as the threshold. Statistical heterogeneity was assessed using I2, and heterogeneity was assessed with the P of the Chi2 test. Continuous outcomes were represented as mean differences (MDs) and pooled using the inverse variance weighting method. Mean standardized differences (SMDs) were used for outcomes reported in different measuring units. Dichotomous outcomes were represented as risk ratios (RRs) and pooled using the inverse variance weighting method. Subgroup analyses were performed comparing NIV-NAVA, NCPAP, and NIPP based on whether ventilation was primary or weaning respiratory support. Those RCT findings that were excluded from the meta-analysis were reported narratively.

2.5. Risk of Bias Assessment

The risk of bias assessment for the RCTs was performed by two groups of reviewers independently using the Revised Cochrane Risk of Bias Assessment Tool in duplicate [30]. When 10 or more studies were included in a meta-analysis, publication bias was assessed by visual inspection of the funnel plot. This study utilized the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) criteria to evaluate the certainty of the evidence for each outcome.

3. Results

The flowchart for the inclusion of studies in the review is shown in Figure 1. The literature search yielded 320 articles, and 88 duplicates were excluded. After screening the remaining 232 studies, 9 RCTs were considered eligible and included in the meta-analysis [18,23,24,25,31,32,33,34,35].

Figure 1.

Figure 1

Open in a new tab

Study flow diagram.

In total, 339 participants were included in this review. Sixty newborns were included in crossover trials [18,23,25,34]. Moreover, 197 (46.7%) newborns received NIV-NAVA, 152 (36%) received NCPAP, and 73 (17.3%) received NIPP. The numbers of males and females were 91 (48.2%) and 98 (51.8%) for participants who received NIV-NAVA, 85 (56%) and 67 (44%) for participants who received NCPAP, and 33 (50.7%) and 32 (49.3%) for participants who received NIPP. The gestational age (weeks) and the birth weight (g) in participants receiving NIV-NAVA, NCPAP, and NIPP are reported in Table 1. The studies’ characteristics and basic demographics are shown in Table 1.

Table 1.

Studies’ characteristics [18,23,24,25,31,32,33,34,35].

Study, Year
(Sample Size)
(Type of Trial)		 Gender Mean Gestational Age (Weeks) Mean Birth Weight (g)
NIV-NAVA NCPAP NIPP NIV-NAVA NCPAP NIPP NIV-NAVA NCPAP NIPP
M/F M/F M/F
Primary Mode Kallio, 2019
(n = 40)
(RCT)		 1:1 1.86:1 - 33.1 (±2.0) * 33.0 (±1.8) * - 2140 (±766) * 2122 (±776) * -
Lee, 2022
(n = 10)
(RCT)		 1:1.5 1:1.5 - 29.57 (±2) * 29.9 (±1.29) * - 1331 (±370) * 1346 (±379) * -
Yagui, 2019
(n = 123)
(RCT)		 1:1.68 1.13:1 - 29.6 (±2.1) * 29.8 (±2.1) * - 1077.8 (±259) * 1130 (±258.4) * -
Secondary (weaning) Mode Shin, 2022
(n = 70)
(RCT)		 1.5:1 1.9:1 - 26.6 (25.4–28.3) ** 27.1 (26–29) ** - 880 (740–1110) ** 970 (740–1120) ** -
Lee, 2015
(n = 15)
(C/O)		 1.5:1 - 1.5:1 27.1 (26–28.29) *** - 27.1 (26–28.29) *** 790 (675–1215) *** - 790 (675–1215) ***
Treussart, 2022
(n = 14)
(C/O)		 1.3:1 - 1.3:1 25.6 (25.3–26.4) ** - 25.6 (25.3–26.4) ** 755 (686–824) ** - 755 (686–824) **
Makker, 2020
(n = 26)
(RCT)		 1:1.17 - 1:1.6 27 (25–28) ** - 27 (26–30) ** 1000 (840–1120) ** - 990 (690–1370) **
Gibu, 2017
(n = 8)
(C/O)		 - - - 25.48 (±1.48) * - 25.48 (±1.48) * 791.125 (±209.35) * - 791.125 (±209.35) *
Latremouille, 2021
(n = 23)
(C/O)		 1:1.09 1:1.09 1:1.09 25.9 (25.2–26.4) ** 760 (595–900) **
Open in a new tab

NIV-NAVA: noninvasive neurally adjusted ventilatory assist, NIPP: nasal intermittent positive airway pressure, NCPAP: nasal continuous or positive airway pressure, C/O: cross-over study, *: mean (SD), **: median (IQR), ***: mean (range).

The mode of ventilation was “primary intervention”, in which admitted premature infants with respiratory distress received noninvasive respiratory support as the initial intervention in three studies [24,31,35]. On the other hand, the intervention was labeled as a weaning intervention (post-extubation from mechanical ventilation) in six studies [18,23,25,32,33,34]. Four RCTs compared NIV-NAVA to NCPAP, four RCTs compared NIV-NAVA to NIPP, and one RCT compared NIV-NAVA to both NCPAP and NIPP.

Seven of the nine RCTs showed an overall low risk of bias. Some concerns and the source of bias being a deviation from the intended intervention were noted for one RCT. Furthermore, one RCT had an overall high risk of bias because of an issue in the randomization process domain (Figure 2 and Figure 3). Section S3 shows the Supplementary reported outcome analysis results (desaturation, bradycardia, PDA, IVH, time to full enteral feeding, pCO2, pH, RR, HR, and FiO2).

Figure 2.

Figure 2

Open in a new tab

Risk of bias graph of the included studies.

Figure 3.

Figure 3

Open in a new tab

Risk of bias summary of the included studies [18,23,24,25,31,32,33,34,35].

3.1. Noninvasive Modality Failure (Need for Intubation When Used as Primary Mode, and Need for Re-Intubation When Used as Weaning)

Four of the RCTs reported the failure of noninvasive Modality (n = 253) [24,31,33,35]. The failure of noninvasive Modality was 28 (22.58%) and 37 (28.68%) in the NIV-NAVA and NCPAP groups, respectively, with no significant difference (RR = 0.77, 95% CI: 0.49 to 1.2, p = 0.24; I2 = 9%). In subgroup analyses based on whether the ventilation was provided as primary or weaning ventilatory support, no significant difference was noted (RR = 0.91, 95% CI: 0.56 to 1.48, p = 0.71; I2 = 0%; RR = 0.46, 95% CI: 0.20 to 1.02, p = 1.08; respectively) (Figure 4). The GRADE certainty of the evidence for the failure of the noninvasive modality was moderate; the grade was lowered by one level due to the imprecision noted in a few events or those that occurred because of participants (Table 2).

Figure 4.

Figure 4

Open in a new tab

Forest plot of comparison between neurally adjusted ventilatory assist (NIV-NAVA) versus nasal continuous airway pressure (NCPAP), outcome “Noninvasive Modality failure (need for intubation when used as primary mode, and need for re-intubation when used as weaning)” [24,31,33,35].

Table 2.

Grading of development, recommendations assessment, and evaluation criteria.

Outcome
(Comparison)		 Certainty Assessment
Participants
(Studies)		 Risk of Bias Inconsistency Indirectness Imprecision Publication Bias Overall Certainty of Evidence
Modality Failure (NIV-NAVA VS. NCPAP) 253
(4 RCTs)		 not serious not serious not serious serious a none Moderate
Length of hospital stay (NIV-NAVA VS. NCPAP) 110
(2 RCTs)		 not serious not serious not serious serious a none Moderate
Mean time to full enteral feeding
(NIV-NAVA VS. NCPAP)		 110
(2 RCTs)		 not serious not serious not serious serious b none Moderate
Duration of invasive ventilation after intubation (NIV-NAVA VS. NCPAP) 183
(3 RCTs)		 not serious serious c not serious serious a none Low
Need for surfactant therapy
(NIV-NAVA VS. NCPAP)		 183
(3 RCTs)		 not serious not serious not serious serious a none Moderate
Need for surfactant therapy
(NIV-NAVA VS. NIPP)		 54
(2 RCTs)		 not serious not serious not serious serious a none Moderate
Desaturation (NIV-NAVA VS. NCPAP) 116
(2 RCTs)		 serious b not serious not serious serious a none Low
Desaturation (NIV-NAVA VS. NIPP) 76
(2 RCTs)		 serious b serious d not serious serious a none Very low
Bradycardia (NIV-NAVA VS. NIPP) 76
(2 RCTs)		 serious b not serious not serious serious a none Low
Pneumothorax (NIV-NAVA VS. NCPAP) 183
(3 RCTs)		 not serious not serious not serious serious a none Moderate
Apnea (NIV-NAVA VS. NCPAP) 193
(2 RCTs)		 not serious serious d not serious serious a none Low
Patent ductus arteriosus (NIV-NAVA VS. NCPAP) 175
(2 RCTs)		 not serious serious d not serious serious a none Low
BPD
(NIV-NAVA VS. NCPAP)		 175
(2 RCTs)		 not serious not serious not serious serious a none Moderate
Intraventricular hemorrhage (NIV-NAVA VS. NCPAP) 215
(3 RCTs)		 not serious not serious not serious serious a none Moderate
FiO2
(NIV-NAVA VS. NCPAP)		 110
(2 RCTs)		 not serious not serious not serious serious a none Moderate
FiO2
(NIV-NAVA VS. NIPP)		 88
(3 RCTs)		 not serious very serious c not serious serious a none Very low
Respiratory rate (NIV-NAVA VS. NIPP) 44
(2 RCTs)		 not serious not serious not serious serious a none Moderate
maximum Edi (NIV-NAVA VS. NIPP) 104
(3 RCTs)		 serious b not serious not serious serious a none Low
swing Edi
(NIV-NAVA VS. NIPP)		 58
(2 RCTs)		 not serious not serious not serious very serious a none Low
minimum Edi (NIV-NAVA VS. NIPP) 104
(3 RCTs)		 serious b not serious not serious serious a none Low
Mean pH
NIV-NAVA VS. NCPAP)		 110
(2 RCTs)		 not serious not serious not serious serious a none Moderate
Mean pCO2 (NIV-NAVA VS. NCPAP) 110
(2 RCTs)		 not serious not serious not serious serious a none Moderate
Open in a new tab

a. Small sample size or wide 95% CI; b. Some concerns or high risk of bias; c. Considerable statistical heterogeneity; d. Substantial statistical heterogeneity.

3.2. Need for Surfactant Therapy

Five RCTs reported the need for surfactant therapy (n = 237) [24,31,32,34,35]. The need for surfactant therapy was 27 (30.33%) and 33 (35.1%) in the NIV-NAVA and NCPAP groups, respectively, and no significant difference was noted (RR = 0.85, 95% CI: 0.56 to 1.29, p = 0.44, I2 = 0%) (Figure 5). The GRADE certainty of the evidence was moderate for the need for surfactant therapy and was lowered by one level due to the imprecision noted in a few events or those that occurred because of participants (Table 2).

Figure 5.

Figure 5

Open in a new tab

Comparison between NIV-NAVA and NCPAP; outcome: “Need for surfactant therapy” [24,31,35].

The need for surfactant therapy was 15 (55.55%) and 15 (55.55%) in the NIV-NAVA and NIPP groups, respectively. No significant difference was noted between the two groups (RR = 1.00, 95% CI: 0.87 to 1.15, p = 1.00, I2 = 0%) (Figure 6). The evidence had moderate GRADE certainty for the need for surfactant therapy and was lowered by one level due to the imprecision noted in a few events or those that occurred because of participants (Table 2).

Figure 6.

Figure 6

Open in a new tab

Forest plot of comparison between NIV-NAVA and NIPP; outcome: “Need for surfactant Therapy” [32,34].

3.3. Pneumothorax

Three RCTs reported the incidence of pneumothorax (n = 183) [24,31,35]. Pneumothorax incidences were five (5.61%) and three (3.19%) in the NIV-NAVA and NCPAP groups, respectively, and no significant difference was detected between the NIV-NAVA and NCPAP groups (RR = 1.56, 95% CI: 0.41 to 5.84, p = 0.51, I2 = 0%) (Figure 7). The evidence had moderate GRADE certainty for pneumothorax and was lowered by one level due to the imprecision noted in a few events or those that occurred because of participants (Table 2). None of the post-extubation trials reported pneumothorax.

Figure 7.

Figure 7

Open in a new tab

Forest plot of comparison between NIV-NAVA and NCPAP; outcome: “Pneumothorax” [24,31,35].

3.4. Bronchopulmonary Dysplasia

Two RCTs reported the incidence of BPD (n = 175) [31,33]. The numbers of BPDs were 11 (11.7%) and 18 (22.2%) in the NIV-NAVA and NCPAP groups, respectively, and no significant difference was detected between the two groups (RR = 0.61, 95% CI: 0.32 to 1.16, p = 0.13, I2 = 0%). Subgroup analysis comparing the NIV-NAVA and NCPAP groups based on whether the ventilatory support was primary or weaning showed no significant difference (RR = 0.31, 95% CI: 0.06 to 1.54, p = 0.15; RR = 0.69, 95% CI: 0.34 to 1.41, p = 0.31, respectively) (Figure 8). The evidence had moderate GRADE certainty for BPD and was lowered by one level due to the imprecision noted in a few events or those that occurred because of participants (Table 2).

Figure 8.

Figure 8

Open in a new tab

Forest plot of comparison between NIV-NAVA and NCPAP; outcome: “Bronchopulmonary dysplasia (BPD)” [33,35].

3.5. Length of NICU Stay

Only one RCT reported the length of stay in the NICU (n = 40) [24]. The NICU length of stay means were 15.9 days and 16.2 days in the NIV-NAVA and NCPAP groups, respectively, and no significant difference was noted between the groups (MD = −0.3, 95% CI: −6.93 to 6.33, p = 0.93). A calculation of the heterogeneity (I2) was not feasible.

3.6. Length of Hospital Stay

Two RCTs reported the length of hospital stays (n = 110) [24,33]. The weighted averages of the length of hospital stays were 67.81 days and 67.99 days in the NIV-NAVA and NCPAP groups, respectively, and no significant difference was noted (MD = −0.17, 95% CI: −7.17 to 6.82, p = 0.96, I2 = 0%). A subgroup analysis comparing the NIV-NAVA and NCPAP groups based on whether the ventilatory support was primary or weaning showed no significant difference (RR = −2.00, 95% CI: −13.19 to 9.19, p = 0.73; RR = 1.00, 95% CI: −7.96 to 9.96, p = 0.83, respectively) (Figure 9). The GRADE certainty of the evidence was rated moderate for the length of hospital stays and was lowered by 1 due to the imprecision noted in a few events or those that occurred because of participants (Table 2).

Figure 9.

Figure 9

Open in a new tab

Forest plot of comparison between NIV-NAVA and NCPAP; outcome: “Length of hospital stay” [24,33].

3.7. Duration of Invasive Ventilation

Three RCTs reported the duration of invasive ventilation (n = 183) [24,31,35]. The weighted average durations of invasive ventilation were 38.86 and 45.02 days in the NIV-NAVA and NCPAP groups, respectively. No significant difference was noted between the two groups (SMD = 0.17, 95% CI: −2.24 to 2.57, p = 0.89, I2 = 97) (Figure 10). The GRADE certainty of evidence was low for the duration of invasive ventilation and was lowered by two levels because of the imprecision and inconsistency given the few participants and the considerable statistical heterogenicity (Table 2).

Figure 10.

Figure 10

Open in a new tab

Forest plot of comparison between NIV-NAVA and NCPAP; outcome: “Duration of invasive ventilation” [24,31,35].

3.8. Electrical Activity of the Diaphragm (Edi)

Three RCTs reported the maximum Edi (n = 104) [18,25,34]. Only one study compared NIV-NAVA to NCPAP [24]. The mean maximum Edis were 58.2 and 62.5 in the NIV-NAVA and NCPAP groups, respectively, and no significant difference was noted between the groups (MD = −4.30, 95% CI: −25.98 to 17.38, p = 0.70). The calculation of heterogeneity (I2) was not feasible.

The weighted averages of maximum Edis were 10.5 and 14 in the NIV-NAVA and NIPP groups, respectively, and a significant difference was noted between the groups (MD = −3.56, 95% CI: −6.61 to −0.52, p = 0.02, I2 = 0%) (Figure 11). The GRADE certainty of the evidence was low for the maximum Edi when comparing NIV-NAVA to NIPP and was lowered by two levels because of the imprecision and risk of bias (Table 2).

Figure 11.

Figure 11

Open in a new tab

Forest plot of comparison between NIV-NAVA and NIPP; outcome: “Maximum Edi (uV)” [18,25,34].

Only one study compared minimum Edis between the NIV-NAVA and NCPAP groups [25]. The mean minimum Edis were 0 and 0 in the NIV-NAVA and NCPAP groups, respectively, and no significant difference was noted between the groups (MD = 0.00, 95% CI: −0.03 to 0.03, p = 1.00). The calculation of heterogeneity (I2) was not feasible.

The weighted average minimum Edis were 0.06 and 0.08 in the NIV-NAVA and NIPP groups, respectively, and no significant difference was noted between the groups (MD = −0.02, 95% CI: −0.24 to 0.20, p = 0.84, I2 = 0%) (Figure 12). The GRADE certainty of evidence was low for maximum Edi when comparing NIV-NAVA to NIPP and was lowered by two levels because of the imprecision and risk of bias (Table 2).

Figure 12.

Figure 12

Open in a new tab

Forest plot of comparison between NIV-NAVA and NIPP; outcome: “Minimum Edi (uV)” [18,25,34].

Two RCTs reported swing Edis (n = 58) [18,34]. The weighted average swing Edis were 6.51 and 9.1 in the NIV-NAVA and NIPP groups, respectively. No significant difference was noted between the two groups (MD = −2.59, 95% CI: −5.48 to 0.29, p = 0.08, I2 = 0%) (Figure 13). For the swing Edi, the evidence had a moderate GRADE certainty and was lowered by one level because of the imprecision (Table 2).

Figure 13.

Figure 13

Open in a new tab

Forest plot of comparison between NIV-NAVA and NIPP; outcome: “Swing Edi (uV)” [18,34].

3.9. Other Outcomes

No statistical significance was noted in the desaturation, bradycardia, PDA, IVH, time to full enteral feeding, pCO2, pH, RR, HR, and FiO2 between NIV-NAVA and NCPAP or NIPP. Refer to Section S3 in the Supplementary Material for a detailed analysis and figures.

4. Discussion

In this systematic review and meta-analysis, the pooled estimates were significantly reduced for the maximum Edi in favor of NIV-NAVA compared to NIPP. However, no significant differences in other ventilatory, clinical, and adverse outcomes were found between the NIV-NAVA and NCPAP or NIPP groups or in the subgroup analyses based on whether the ventilatory support was the primary or weaning modalities.

The failure of the noninvasive modality (need for intubation when used as a primary mode or need for re-intubation when used as weaning) is a commonly reported key performance indicator, and the prevention of intubation/re-intubation can reduce adverse outcomes. For the primary mode, the consensus recommends a noninvasive approach as a primary rescue for preterm infants with evidence of respiratory distress. The failure of such a method results in intubation and surfactant administration and is inversely related to the degree of prematurity and accounts for 50% of preterm infants weighing <1500 g [36,37,38].

In a meta-analysis, if applied within six hours after birth, NIPP reduces the risk of respiratory failure and the need for intubation in very preterm infants (GA 28 weeks and above) with a risk for RDS. It may also decrease the rate of BPD slightly [39]. In this meta-analysis, there was no significant difference between the NIV-NAVA and NCPAP in terms of failure for the noninvasive modality (requiring intubation) as a primary modality.

Systematic reviews proved the superiority of NIPP ventilation over NCPAP as a weaning mode post-extubation from mechanical ventilation in preterm infants in regards to extubation failure (re-intubation). There is a paucity of data for infants less than 28 weeks gestation [15]. A recent RCT comparing the success rate of elective extubation between NIV-NAVA and NIPP demonstrated no statistical reduction in the risk of extubation failure [32]. Nevertheless, another RCT reported the superiority of NIV-NAVA to NCPAP in reducing extubation failure, which is consistent with two previous retrospective studies [33,40,41]. In this meta-analysis, the rate of mechanical reintubation after post-extubation was not significantly different between NIV-NAVA and NCPAP. Moreover, in this study, the trials included more extreme preterm infants than Lemyre et al. found [15]. Our conclusion is consistent with a recent Cochrane review [26].

Notably, the trials that were carried out to investigate the primary modes included higher gestational ages and birth weights than the trials for the post-extubation; see Table 1. This was similar to the conclusion of another meta-analysis that compared NIPP to NCAP. However, most trials enrolled infants with a gestational age of very preterm infants from 28 to 32 weeks, with an overall mean gestational age of around 30 weeks. As such, the results of this review may not apply to extremely preterm infants (<28 weeks) who are most at risk of needing mechanical ventilation or developing BPD. Additional studies are needed to confirm these results and to assess the safety of NIPP compared with NCPAP alone in a larger patient population [40].

According to the European Consensus Guidelines on the Management of Respiratory Distress Syndrome, multiple multicenter RCTs demonstrated that the early use of surfactants in preterm infants resulted in a lower incidence of BPD and pneumothorax [13]. However, in our study, no significant differences in surfactant therapy, incidences of BPD, and pneumothorax were detected between the ventilation modalities. A recent meta-analysis comparing NIV-NAVA to NCPAP demonstrated similar results [27]. Moreover, multiple RCTs reported insignificant differences between NIV-NAVA and the usual noninvasive care [18,24,27,31,32,33,35]. For the duration of the invasive ventilation, there was a wide heterogeneity between the studies. Hence, future multicentric studies with a more real-world approach are needed to delineate this issue.

Here, preterm infant electrical diaphragm activity between NIV-NAVA and NCPAP or NIPP was compared. Electrical diaphragm activity was measured as maximum, minimum, and swing Edi. Although the results demonstrated no significant differences in minimum and swing Edi, maximum Edi favored NIV-NAVA to NIPP. Acquiring a lower maximum Edi would favor NIV-NAVA in terms of better breathing and synchronicity. However, this is a short-term advantage. This was not reflected in any clinical or short-term benefits in this or earlier meta-analyses (Cochrane). Trials measuring long-term outcomes are crucial to further determine which ventilatory modality is superior.

In comparison to the previous Cochrane review, Goel et al., our study produced results by analyzing desaturation, bradycardia, PDA, IVH, time to full enteral feeding, pCO2, pH, and HR [26].

To the best of our knowledge, only two systematic reviews and meta-analyses compared NIV-NAVA to other noninvasive modalities in terms of the failure of the noninvasive modality requiring intubation when used as a primary mode and the need for re-intubation when used as weaning, as well as other clinical and ventilatory outcomes [26,27]. Our meta-analysis is the first to produce results from the subgroup analyses comparing ventilation modalities used as primary or weaning interventions. Moreover, this is the first meta-analysis comparing swing Edi and involves a larger sample size compared to other reviews from high-level evidence RCTs. In our review, most of the RCTs were well-conducted and showed an overall low risk of bias, thus putting forward that RCT findings were consistent, had a low rate of heterogeneity, and provided optimal evidence for meta-analysis. Nonetheless, we are aware that our review has substantial limitations. The assessment of publication bias was not feasible since no outcome was reported in more than 10 studies. Most of the included studies focused on short-term ventilatory and clinical outcomes. Thus, we recommend more trials measuring long-term outcomes, including healthcare utilization and pulmonary and neurodevelopmental outcomes [42,43,44]. Most of the eligible RCTs were single-center studies with relatively low sample sizes. Multicenter trials with extended risk factor analyses, such as maternal risk scores and multidomain socioeconomic status, are recommended to obtain greater evidence [45,46].

5. Conclusions

This systematic review and meta-analysis compared NIV-NAVA with NCPAP or NIPP for preterm infants with RDS. A significant difference in maximum Edi favored NIV-NAVA compared to NIPP. No significant differences in other clinical and ventilatory outcomes were detected between NIV-NAVA and NCPAP or NIPP. No significant difference was found in subgroup analyses between NIV-NAVA, NCPAP, and NIPP based on whether ventilatory support was given as a primary or weaning modality. Further trials are recommended to obtain greater evidence.

Supplementary Materials

The following supporting information can be downloaded at: https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/children10121935/s1, Supplementary Section S1: Definitions and more information about the population, conditions, and ventilation modes included in this study. Supplementary Section S2: Search strategy. Section S3: Supplementary Outcomes. Figure S1: Forest plot of comparison between NIV–NAVA and NCPAP; outcome: “Desaturation”. Figure S2: Forest plot of comparison between NIV–NAVA and NIPP; outcome: “Desaturation”. Figure S3: Forest plot of comparison between NIV–NAVA and NIPP; outcome: “Bradycardia”. Figure S4: Forest plot of comparison between NIV–NAVA and NCPAP; outcome: “Apnea”. Figure S5: Forest plot of comparison between NIV–NAVA and NCPAP; outcome: “Patent ductus arteriosus (PDA)”. Figure S6: Forest plot of comparison between NIV–NAVA and NCPAP; outcome: “Intraventricular hemorrhage (IVH)”. Figure S7: Forest plot of comparison between NIV–NAVA and NCPAP; outcome: “Mean time to full enteral feeding (days)”. Figure S8: Forest plot of comparison between NIV–NAVA and NCPAP; outcome: “Mean pCO2”. Figure S9: Forest plot of comparison between NIV–NAVA and NCPAP; outcome: “Mean pH”. Figure S10: Forest plot of comparison between NIV–NAVA and NIPP; outcome: “Respiratory rate (RR)”. Figure S11: Forest plot of comparison between NIV–NAVA and NCPAP; outcome: “Fraction of inspired oxygen (FiO2)”. Figure S12: Forest plot of comparison between NIV–NAVA and NIPP; outcome: “Fraction of inspired oxygen (FiO2)”. Refs. [47,48] are cited in the Supplementary Materials.

Click here for additional data file. (1.6MB, zip)

Author Contributions

M.B. acted as the guarantor of the manuscript, and all authors approved the final version of the article to be published. M.B., M.A.-H., M.A.-Q. and A.G. designed the study and wrote the protocol. A.G. and M.B. wrote the search strategy and undertook the literature searches, and M.B. wrote the draft of the manuscript. R.K., A.A. (Amal Abualola), A.A. (Anas Alamoudi), N.A. and I.H. undertook study screening, data extraction, and quality assessment. A.G. and M.B. undertook all data analysis, supervised by M.A.-H. and M.A.-Q. All authors contributed to the interpretation of the findings. M.A.-H. and M.A.-Q. provided critical revisions to the article. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

The data presented in this study are available in article.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Funding Statement

This research received no external funding.

Footnotes

Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

References

  • 1.Dbstet A. WHO: Recommended definitions, terminology and format for statistical tables related to the perinatal period and use of a new certificate for cause of perinatal deaths. Modifications recommended by Figo as amended October 14, 1976. Acta Obs. Gynecol Scand. 1977;56:247–253. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Raju T.N.K., Higgins R.D., Stark A.R., Leveno K.J. Optimizing care and outcome for late-preterm (near-term) infants: A summary of the workshop sponsored by the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. Pediatrics. 2006;118:1207–1214. doi: 10.1542/peds.2006-0018. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Chawanpaiboon S., Vogel J.P., Moller A.B., Lumbiganon P., Petzold M., Hogan D., Landoulsi S., Jampathong N., Kongwattanakul K., Laopaiboon M., et al. Global, regional, and national estimates of levels of preterm birth in 2014: A systematic review and modelling analysis. Lancet Glob. Health. 2019;7:e37–e46. doi: 10.1016/S2214-109X(18)30451-0. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Stoll B.J., Hansen N.I., Bell E.F., Walsh M.C., Carlo W.A., Shankaran S., Laptook A.R., Sánchez P.J., Van Meurs K.P., Wyckoff M., et al. Trends in care practices, morbidity, and mortality of extremely preterm neonates, 1993–2012. JAMA. 2015;314:1039–1051. doi: 10.1001/jama.2015.10244. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Jobe A.H., Bancalari E. Bronchopulmonary dysplasia. Am. J. Respir. Crit Care Med. 2001;163:1723–1729. doi: 10.1164/ajrccm.163.7.2011060. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Koivisto M., Marttila R., Kurkinen-Räty M., Saarela T., Pokela M.L., Jouppila P., Hallman M. Changing incidence and outcome of infants with respiratory distress syndrome in the 1990s: A population-based survey. Acta Paediatr. 2004;93:177–184. doi: 10.1111/j.1651-2227.2004.tb00702.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Morley C.J., Davis P.G., Doyle L.W., Brion L.P., Hascoet J.M., Carlin J.B. Nasal CPAP or intubation at birth for very preterm infants. N. Engl. J. Med. 2008;358:700–708. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa072788. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Van Kaam A.H., Rimensberger P.C., Borensztajn D., De Jaegere A.P., Neovent Study Group Ventilation practices in the Neonatal Intensive Care Unit: A cross-sectional study. J. Pediatr. 2010;157:767–771.e1. doi: 10.1016/j.jpeds.2010.05.043. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Mwaniki M.K., Atieno M., Lawn J.E., Newton C.R. Long-term neurodevelopmental outcomes after intrauterine and neonatal insults: A systematic review. Lancet. 2012;379:445–452. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(11)61577-8. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Araújo B.F., Zatti H., Madi J.M., Coelho M.B., Olmi F.B., Canabarro C.T. Analysis of neonatal morbidity and mortality in late-preterm newborn infants. J. Pediatr. 2012;88:259–266. doi: 10.2223/JPED.2196. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Platt M.J. Outcomes in preterm infants. Public Health. 2014;128:399–403. doi: 10.1016/j.puhe.2014.03.010. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Kinsella J.P., Greenough A., Abman S.H. Bronchopulmonary dysplasia. Lancet. 2006;367:1421–1431. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(06)68615-7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Sweet D.G., Carnielli V., Greisen G., Hallman M., Ozek E., Plavka R., Saugstad O.D., Simeoni U., Speer C.P., Vento M., et al. European consensus guidelines on the management of respiratory distress syndrome—2016 update. Neonatology. 2017;111:107–125. doi: 10.1159/000448985. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Huang L., Mendler M.R., Waitz M., Schmid M., Hassan M.A., Hummler H.D. Effects of synchronization during noninvasive intermittent mandatory ventilation in preterm infants with respiratory distress syndrome immediately after extubation. Neonatology. 2015;108:108–114. doi: 10.1159/000431074. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Lemyre B., Davis P.G., De Paoli A.G., Kirpalani H. Nasal intermittent positive pressure ventilation (NIPPV) versus nasal continuous positive airway pressure (NCPAP) for preterm neonates after extubation. Cochrane Database Syst. Rev. 2017;2:CD003212. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD003212.pub3. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Beck J., Reilly M., Grasselli G., Qui H., Slutsky A.S., Dunn M.S., Sinderby C.A. Characterization of neural breathing pattern in spontaneously breathing preterm infants. Pediatr. Res. 2011;70:607–613. doi: 10.1203/PDR.0b013e318232100e. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Stein H., Alosh H., Ethington P., White D.B. Prospective crossover comparison between Nava and pressure control ventilation in premature neonates less than 1500 grams. J. Perinatol. 2013;33:452–456. doi: 10.1038/jp.2012.136. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Lee J., Kim H.S., Jung Y.H., Shin S.H., Choi C.W., Kim E.K., Kim B.I., Choi J.H. Non-invasive neurally adjusted ventilatory assist in preterm infants: A randomised phase II crossover trial. Arch. Dis. Child Fetal. Neonatal. Ed. 2015;100:F507–F513. doi: 10.1136/archdischild-2014-308057. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Colaizy T.T., Kummet G.J., Kummet C.M., Klein J.M. Noninvasive neurally adjusted ventilatory assist in premature infants postextubation. Am. J. Perinatol. 2017;34:593–598. doi: 10.1055/s-0036-1596053. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Beck J., Brander L., Slutsky A.S., Reilly M.C., Dunn M.S., Sinderby C. Non-invasive neurally adjusted ventilatory assist in rabbits with acute lung injury. Intensive Care Med. 2008;34:316–323. doi: 10.1007/s00134-007-0882-x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Sinderby C., Navalesi P., Beck J., Skrobik Y., Comtois N., Friberg S., Gottfried S.B., Lindström L. Neural control of mechanical ventilation in respiratory failure. Nat. Med. 1999;5:1433–1436. doi: 10.1038/71012. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Sinderby C., Beck J. Neurally adjusted ventilatory assist in non-invasive ventilation. Minerva Anestesiol. 2013;79:915–925. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Gibu C.K., Cheng P.Y., Ward R.J., Castro B., Heldt G.P. Feasibility and physiological effects of noninvasive neurally adjusted ventilatory assist in preterm infants. Pediatr. Res. 2017;82:650–657. doi: 10.1038/pr.2017.100. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Kallio M., Mahlman M., Koskela U., Aikio O., Suo-Palosaari M., Pokka T., Saarela T., Hallman M. NIV NAVA versus nasal CPAP in premature infants: A randomized clinical trial. Neonatology. 2019;116:380–384. doi: 10.1159/000502341. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Latremouille S., Bhuller M., Shalish W., Sant’Anna G. Cardiorespiratory effects of NIV-NAVA, NIPPV, and NCPAP shortly after extubation in extremely preterm infants: A randomized crossover trial. Pediatr. Pulmonol. 2021;56:3273–3282. doi: 10.1002/ppul.25607. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Goel D., Oei J.L., Smyth J., Schindler T. Diaphragm-triggered non-invasive respiratory support in preterm infants. Cochrane Database Syst. Rev. 2020;3:CD012935. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD012935.pub2. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Xu Y., Zhu X., Kong X., Li J. Outcomes of noninvasive neurally adjusted ventilatory assist and nasal continuous positive airway pressure in preterm infants: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Arch. Argent. Pediatr. 2022;120:89–98. doi: 10.5546/aap.2022.eng.89. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Liberati A., Altman D.G., Tetzlaff J., Mulrow C., Gøtzsche P.C., Ioannidis J.P., Clarke M., Devereaux P.J., Kleijnen J., Moher D. The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate healthcare interventions: Explanation and elaboration. BMJ. 2009;339:b2700. doi: 10.1136/bmj.b2700. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Higgins J.P., Eldridge S., Li T. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. Wiley; Hoboken, NJ, USA: 2019. Including variants on randomized trials; pp. 569–593. [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Sterne J.A.C., Savović J., Page M.J., Elbers R.G., Blencowe N.S., Boutron I., Cates C.J., Cheng H.Y., Corbett M.S., Eldridge S.M., et al. RoB 2: A revised tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. BMJ. 2019;366:l4898. doi: 10.1136/bmj.l4898. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Lee J., Parikka V., Oda A., Wallström L., Lehtonen L., Soukka H. NIV-NAVA versus NCPAP immediately after birth in premature infants: A randomized controlled trial. Respir. Physiol. Neurobiol. 2022;302:103916. doi: 10.1016/j.resp.2022.103916. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Makker K., Cortez J., Jha K., Shah S., Nandula P., Lowrie D., Smotherman C., Gautam S., Hudak M.L. Comparison of extubation success using noninvasive positive pressure ventilation (NIPPV) versus noninvasive neurally adjusted ventilatory assist (NI-NAVA) J. Perinatol. 2020;40:1202–1210. doi: 10.1038/s41372-019-0578-4. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Shin S.H., Shin S.H., Kim S.H., Song I.G., Jung Y.H., Kim E.K., Kim H.S. Noninvasive neurally adjusted ventilation in postextubation stabilization of preterm infants: A randomized controlled study. J. Pediatr. 2022;247:53–59.e1. doi: 10.1016/j.jpeds.2022.04.025. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Treussart C., Decobert F., Tauzin M., Bourgoin L., Danan C., Dassieu G., Carteaux G., Mekontso-Dessap A., Louis B., Durrmeyer X. Patient-ventilator synchrony in extremely premature neonates during non-invasive neurally adjusted ventilatory assist or synchronized intermittent positive airway pressure: A randomized crossover pilot trial. Neonatology. 2022;119:386–393. doi: 10.1159/000524327. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Yagui A.C., Meneses J., Zólio B.A., Brito G.M.G., da Silva R.J., Rebello C.M. Nasal continuous positive airway pressure (NCPAP) or noninvasive neurally adjusted ventilatory assist (NIV-NAVA) for preterm infants with respiratory distress after birth: A randomized controlled trial. Pediatr. Pulmonol. 2019;54:1704–1711. doi: 10.1002/ppul.24466. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Shalish W., Kanbar L., Kovacs L., Chawla S., Keszler M., Rao S., Panaitescu B., Laliberte A., Precup D., Brown K., et al. The impact of time interval between extubation and reintubation on death or bronchopulmonary dysplasia in extremely preterm infants. J. Pediatr. 2019;205:70–76.e2. doi: 10.1016/j.jpeds.2018.09.062. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Shalish W., Kanbar L., Keszler M., Chawla S., Kovacs L., Rao S., Panaitescu B.A., Laliberte A., Precup D., Brown K., et al. Patterns of reintubation in extremely preterm infants: A longitudinal cohort study. Pediatr. Res. 2018;83:969–975. doi: 10.1038/pr.2017.330. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Kirpalani H., Millar D., Lemyre B., Yoder B.A., Chiu A., Roberts R.S., Roberts R.S., NIPPV Study Group A trial comparing noninvasive ventilation strategies in preterm infants. N. Engl. J. Med. 2013;369:611–620. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1214533. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Lemyre B., Deguise M.O., Benson P., Kirpalani H., Ekhaguere O.A., Davis P.G. Early nasal intermittent positive pressure ventilation (NIPPV) versus early nasal continuous positive airway pressure (NCPAP) for preterm infants. Cochrane Database Syst. Rev. 2023;7:CD005384. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD005384.pub2. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Lee B.K., Shin S.H., Jung Y.H., Kim E.K., Kim H.S. Comparison of NIV-NAVA and NCPAP in facilitating extubation for very preterm infants. BMC Pediatr. 2019;19:298. doi: 10.1186/s12887-019-1683-4. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Yagui A.C., Gonçalves P.A., Murakami S.H., Santos A.Z., Zacharias R.S.B., Rebello C.M. Is noninvasive neurally adjusted ventilatory assistance (NIV-NAVA) an alternative to NCPAP in preventing extubation failure in preterm infants? J. Matern. Fetal. Neonatal. Med. 2021;34:3756–3760. doi: 10.1080/14767058.2019.1697669. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Al-Hindi M., Alshamrani Z., Alkhotani W., Albassam A., Amin Tashkandi A., AlQurashi M. Utilization of health-care resources of preterm infants during their first 2 years of life after discharge from neonatal intensive care unit. J. Clin. Neonatol. 2021;10:37. doi: 10.4103/jcn.jcn_204_20. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Alharbi A.S., Alqwaiee M., Al-Hindi M.Y., Mosalli R., Al-Shamrani A., Alharbi S., Yousef A., Al Aidaroos A., Alahmadi T., Alshammary A., et al. Bronchiolitis in children: The Saudi initiative of bronchiolitis diagnosis, management, and prevention (SIBRO) Ann. Thorac. Med. 2018;13:127–143. doi: 10.4103/atm.ATM_60_18. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Al-Hindi M.Y., Almahdi B.H., Alasmari D.A., Alwagdani R.K., Hunjur W.M., Khalel A.F., AlQurashi M.A. Screening for neurodevelopmental delay for preterm very low birth weight infants at Tertiary Care Center in Saudi Arabia. Cureus. 2021;13:e20092. doi: 10.7759/cureus.20092. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 45.Al-Hindi M.Y., Al Sayari T.A., Al Solami R., Al Baiti A.K., Alnemri J.A., Mirza I.M., Alattas A., Faden Y.A. Association of antenatal risk score with maternal and neonatal mortality and morbidity. Cureus. 2020;12:e12230. doi: 10.7759/cureus.12230. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 46.Al-Hindi M.Y., Aljuhani H., Alnajjar A.R., Alessa S., Alqurashi M., Faden Y.A. Examining the association between parental socioeconomic status and preterm birth using multidomain social determinants scale in a Tertiary Care Center in Saudi Arabia. Cureus. 2020;12:e10506. doi: 10.7759/cureus.10506. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 47.Bolisetty S., Legge N., Bajuk B., Lui K. Preterm infant outcomes in New South Wales and the Australian Capital Territory. J. Paediatr. Child Health. 2015;51:713–721. doi: 10.1111/jpc.12848. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 48.Darnall R.A. The role of CO2 and central chemoreception in the control of breathing in the fetus and the neonate. Respir. Physiol. Neurobiol. 2010;173:201–212. doi: 10.1016/j.resp.2010.04.009. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Associated Data

This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

Supplementary Materials

Click here for additional data file. (1.6MB, zip)

Data Availability Statement

The data presented in this study are available in article.

Articles from Children are provided here courtesy of Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute (MDPI)

RESOURCES