Nasal Intermittent Positive

P re s s u re Ven t i l a t i o n f o r
N e o n a t a l R e s p i r a t o r y D i s t res s
S y n d ro m e
Christoph M. Rüegger, MDa,*, Louise S. Owen, MD, FRACP
b,c,d
,
Peter G. Davis, MD, FRACPb,c,d

KEYWORDS
 Infant  Premature  Respiratory distress syndrome  Noninvasive ventilation
 Nasal positive pressure ventilation

KEY POINTS
 Two device types have typically been used to deliver NIPPV: ventilators and flow-drivers,
both devices can incorporate the option to synchronize pressure changes with sponta-
neous breathing.
 Ventilator-generated NIPPV is traditionally set up to deliver NIPPV with settings mimicking
settings used during endotracheal ventilation.
 Flow-driver-generated NIPPV may also be set up in this manner, albeit with lower peak
pressures, but it is more typically used with settings reflective of bilevel CPAP.
 Overall, NIPPV is superior to CPAP as primary and postextubation support for the preven-
tion of respiratory failure in preterm infants, especially when ventilator-generated, syn-
chronized NIPPV is used.
 Ventilator-generated, synchronized NIPPV as either primary or postextubation support in
preterm infants may reduce the risk of bronchopulmonary dysplasia, but is not associated
with a decrease in mortality.

INTRODUCTION

In the past, preterm infants with signs of moderate or severe respiratory distress were
intubated and mechanically ventilated. This invasive approach resulted in inflamma-
tion of the lungs in the short-term and impaired development and scarring known
as bronchopulmonary dysplasia (BPD) in the long-term.1 Efforts to decrease rates

a
Newborn Research, Department of Neonatology, University Hospital Zurich, University of
Zurich, Frauenklinikstrasse 10, Zurich 8091, Switzerland; b Newborn Research Centre and
Neonatal Services, The Royal Women’s Hospital, Melbourne, Australia; c Department of Ob-
stetrics and Gynaecology, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia; d Clinical Sci-
ences, Murdoch Children’s Research Institute, Melbourne, Australia
* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: [email protected]

Clin Perinatol 48 (2021) 725–744

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clp.2021.07.004 perinatology.theclinics.com
0095-5108/21/ª 2021 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. This is an open access article under
the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
726 Rüegger et al

of BPD in the surfactant/antenatal steroid era have led to an increased use of nonin-
vasive respiratory support for even the most immature infants.2
Prophylactic nasal continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP), started soon after
birth, is now recommended for spontaneously breathing very preterm or very low-
birth-weight infants with respiratory distress syndrome (RDS).3 Prophylactic CPAP re-
duces the need for mechanical ventilation and surfactant administration, and lowers
the rates of both BPD alone and the combined outcome of death or BPD when
compared with immediate endotracheal ventilation.3
Despite the physiologic and clinical benefits, CPAP failure rates remain at approx-
imately 50% in the first week of life in extremely preterm newborns at highest risk
for developing BPD.4–7 CPAP failure is associated with a substantial increase in impor-
tant adverse outcomes including air leak, BPD, intraventricular hemorrhage, and
death.8
As a result, methods to augment the effectiveness of CPAP have gained interest.9
Noninvasive intermittent positive pressure ventilation (NIPPV) applied at the nose
has become a well-established therapy for preterm infants.10 Despite its frequent
use, uncertainty remains regarding the precise terminology, the appropriate clinical in-
dications, the different devices and techniques used to generate NIPPV, and the level
of benefit they provide. These differences complicate the interpretation of the available
evidence.11,12 In this review, we address these uncertainties, with a particular focus on
NIPPV as primary and postextubation respiratory support for preterm infants with
RDS. For both indications, we summarize the current evidence from randomized
controlled trials (RCTs) comparing NIPPV with CPAP.

NASAL INTERMITTENT POSITIVE PRESSURE VENTILATION

Terminology
NIPPV is a form of noninvasive respiratory support that combines a continuous pos-
itive end-expiratory airway pressure (PEEP) with intermittent higher pressures deliv-
ered by a nasal mask or nasal prongs. The terminology surrounding NIPPV is
confusing. There are many alternative pressure generating devices, interfaces, and
settings available. In addition, some devices allow synchronization with the infant’s
own breathing efforts. The most common abbreviations include nsNIPPV (non-
synchronized NIPPV), sNIPPV (synchronized NIPPV), BiPAP (biphasic CPAP), bilevel
CPAP, and bilevel NIPPV.
Although all these modes are considered forms of NIPPV, 2 main NIPPV modalities
must be distinguished: traditional NIPPV, with settings designed to mimic ventilator
settings, typically generated using a ventilator, or alternatively settings that are more
reflective of bilevel CPAP, typically generated using flow-drivers. There are devices
of both types which have the capacity to synchronize pressure changes with sponta-
neous breathing (Table 1).

Pressure and Volume Delivery

The lower pressure level (PEEP) during NIPPV offers the same physiologic benefits
as CPAP, that is, stabilization of the upper airways and the compliant preterm chest
wall and prevention of end-expiratory alveolar collapse. This maintains functional re-
sidual capacity and reduces ventilation-perfusion mismatch, which improves
oxygenation and work of breathing. The intermittent pressure peaks increase the
mean airway pressure (MAP) above the PEEP level, potentially further recruiting
the lung, which may improve functional residual capacity more efficiently than
CPAP alone.13
 Table 1
Characteristics of ‘traditional’ NIPPV and bilevel CPAP18,22,33

‘Traditional’ NIPPV Bilevel CPAP

Device Mostly ventilator, can be flow-driver with lower peak Flow-driver
pressure settings
Principle Mimics timings and settings used during endotracheal Independent breathing on two PEEP levels
ventilation
Interface Short binasal prongs, nasal masks, nasopharyngeal tubes Short binasal prongs, nasal masks
Maximum pressure Similar to endotracheal ventilation, usually 25 cm H2O 11–15 cm H2O, depending on operating modea
Peak and PEEP pressure 5 cm H2O 4 cm H2O
difference

Nasal Intermittent Positive Pressure Ventilation

High pressure delivery rate Variable (10–60 per min) Low (10–30 per min)
High pressure duration Short (<0.5 s) Long (0.5–1 s)
Synchronization Possible, available with some ventilators Possible, usually not intended, available with some devices
Method of synchronization Pneumatic capsule (eg, Graseby), flow sensor, pressure Pneumatic capsule (eg, Graseby)34
sensor, neurally adjusted ventilator assist (NAVA)
Pressure curves

a
Infant Flow SiPAP (Vyaire Medical, Mettawa, Il, USA): theoretic maximum at 11 cm H2O if nonsynchronized and at 15 cm H2O if synchronized, although delivered
pressures are often well below these maximums.9,19

727
728 Rüegger et al

Because of large and variable leaks around the nose and mouth, the transmission
of applied NIPPV pressures to the lung is substantially attenuated.14,15 Moreover,
observational studies demonstrate that the majority of nonsynchronized pressure
peaks occur during spontaneous expiration and do not contribute to tidal volume.16
When the pressure rises coincided with spontaneous inspiration, only a 15% in-
crease in relative tidal volume was noted. During apneic episodes, pressure peaks
resulted in measurable tidal volumes only 5% of the time, and produced tidal vol-
umes a quarter of those seen during spontaneous breathing. Higher peak inspiratory
pressures did not increase the likelihood of a visible chest inflation, suggesting that
higher set pressures may not provide additional respiratory assistance during
apnoea.16
Whether nonsynchronized NIPPV confers any benefit over CPAP when the PEEP
during CPAP is matched to the generated MAP during NIPPV is still a matter of debate.
A small crossover study including 10 infants on nonsynchronized NIPPV and CPAP
delivered at the same MAP found minimal differences in short-term outcomes, sug-
gesting that any advantage of nonsynchronized NIPPV may arise from a higher
MAP rather than from the effect of the intermittent pressure peaks themselves.13

Synchronization
Observations of low pressure and volume delivery during nonsynchronized NIPPV
suggest support may be more effective if inflations are synchronized with the infant’s
own inspiratory efforts. Synchronization may be achieved by airway flow detection,
which ensures that the glottis is open before pressure is applied.17 However, this is
challenging because of air leakage around the prongs and masks and from the
open mouth. Graseby capsules are unaffected by air leak, but may be affected by
movement artifact; however, they are the most commonly used method for NIPPV
synchronization.18 These cheap, lightweight, and disposable capsules are noninva-
sively attached to the anterior abdominal wall below the xiphoid process; they consist
of a small, flat balloon filled with air, which is sensitive to pressure variations. The
balloon connects to a pressure transducer capable of detecting the beginning of
the diaphragmatic contraction, which enables the synchronization of the pressure
peak. Although the accuracy of the Graseby capsule is affected by its position,
method of fixation, and movement artifacts, it produces reliable signals that rapidly
trigger the set pressure peak with most spontaneous breaths.19–21 Other potential
synchronization methods include neurally adjusted ventilatory assist, currently avail-
able with the Servo-n ventilator (Maquet, Solna, Sweden) and respiratory inductance
plethysmography.22

Safety
Although there were initial concerns regarding an increased risk of gastrointestinal
side effects with NIPPV, recent evidence suggests that NIPPV is a safe therapy in pre-
term infants.23 This has been confirmed by 2 systematic reviews of the Cochrane
Collaboration on NIPPV for initial support of neonatal RDS and for preterm infants after
extubation.11,12 Both reviews reported no significant differences between the NIPPV
and CPAP groups in rates of feeding intolerance, gastrointestinal perforation, necro-
tizing enterocolitis, or air leak. The incidence of nasal injury through tight-fitting binasal
prongs has not been assessed systematically for infants receiving NIPPV. Since the
risk of nasal injury, and the strategies to prevent it are considered the same for NIPPV
and CPAP, use of nasal masks, rotating nasal interfaces, and nasal barrier dressings
may be equally effective in reducing nasal injury during NIPPV.24
 Nasal Intermittent Positive Pressure Ventilation 729

CLINICAL EVIDENCE

The majority of clinical trials in preterm infants have compared NIPPV with CPAP as
either the primary mode of treatment for neonatal RDS, or after extubation. Of these
trials, Kirpalani’s NIPPV Trial dominates the literature.25 This large, pragmatic trial dif-
fers from the smaller studies in that it recruited a heterogeneous study population and
permitted a variety of devices to deliver NIPPV, including some that delivered synchro-
nized pressure changes. Although pragmatic, the considerable degree of methodo-
logical and clinical heterogeneity makes interpretation of pooled trial results difficult.
To evaluate the impact of these variations, we begin with a review of Kirpalani’s NIPPV
Trial and its substudies, and provide updated meta-analyses of trials comparing
NIPPV with CPAP as primary or postextubation support for neonatal RDS.
Kirpalani’s Nasal Intermittent Positive Pressure Ventilation Trial
This large randomized, controlled, multicenter trial conducted between 2007 and 2011
hypothesized that NIPPV would reduce the risk of BPD in extremely low-birth-weight
infants by minimizing the duration of endotracheal intubation.25 Infants with a birth
weight of less than 1000 g and a gestational age of less than 30 weeks, eligible for
noninvasive support within the first 28 days of life, were randomly assigned to 1 of 2
forms of noninvasive respiratory support, NIPPV or CPAP. Initial settings for respira-
tory support were provided, but not mandated and clinicians could individualize
care. No NIPPV delivery devices were specified, NIPPV synchronization was
permitted but not mandated. The primary outcome was a composite of death or mod-
erate/severe BPD according to National Institutes of Health criteria.26 Three pre-
planned subgroup analyses were performed according to birth weight, prior
intubation status (intubated or nonintubated before randomization), and the form of
the intervention used in the NIPPV group (synchronized or nonsynchronized).
A total of 1009 infants with a mean gestational age of 26 weeks and a mean birth
weight of 800 g were enrolled. The primary outcome, death or BPD occurred in
38.4% (191 of 497 infants) randomized to NIPPV and in 36.7% (180 of 490) random-
ized to CPAP (adjusted odds ratio, 1.09; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.83–1.43;
P 5 .56). There were no significant differences between NIPPV and CPAP in the indi-
vidual components of death or BPD, in other prespecified secondary outcomes
including potential adverse effects of treatment, or in the subgroup analyses accord-
ing to birth weight, prior intubation status, or synchronization.
In the years following the publication of Kirpalani’s NIPPV Trial results, 2 secondary
analyses have been published with the following aims: (1) to examine whether important
outcomes differed in infants who received ventilator-generated or flow-driver-generated
NIPPV, and (2) to compare noninvasive ventilation failure rates in intubation-naı̈ve
extremely low-birth-weight infants randomized to NIPPV or CPAP.27,28
Substudy 1: ventilator-generated versus flow-driver-generated nasal intermittent
positive pressure ventilation
This nonrandomized comparison from Kirpalani’s NIPPV Trial provides outcome data
on the 497 infants in the NIPPV group.27 NIPPV could be delivered by a ventilator or a
flow-driver device based on unit preference, practice, and device availability. Irrespec-
tive of the device, traditional NIPPV settings or bilevel CPAP settings could be used. In
the NIPPV group, 215 infants received ventilator-generated NIPPV and 241 received
flow-driver-generated NIPPV. Forty-one infants, in whom both devices had been
used, were excluded. The composite outcome, death or BPD at 36 weeks was 39%
in the ventilator-generated NIPPV group and 37% in the flow-driver-generated NIPPV
group (adjusted odds ratio, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.57–1.35; P 5 .56). Although rates of BPD
730 Rüegger et al

were not significantly different between groups (adjusted odds ratio, 0.64; 95% CI,
0.41–1.02; P 5 .061), more deaths occurred before 36 weeks gestational age in the
flow-driver-generated NIPPV group (2.3% vs 9.4%; adjusted odds ratio, 5.01; 95%
CI, 1.74–14.4; P 5 .003).
Substudy 2: nasal intermittent positive pressure ventilation versus continuous
positive airway pressure in intubation-naı̈ve infants
The second substudy compared the rate of ‘failure of noninvasive support’ in infants
who were never intubated before enrollment and randomization.28 As opposed to the
original trial and substudy 1, the primary outcome was defined as failure of noninva-
sive respiratory support requiring endotracheal intubation at any time in the first
7 days after randomization. Of the 1009 extremely low-birth-weight infants initially
enrolled in the NIPPV trial, 142 had not been intubated before randomization. Of those,
27.5% in the NIPPV group and 30.1% in the CPAP group were subsequently intubated
(relative risk, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.54–1.53). The combined outcome of death or BPD at
36 weeks postmenstrual age was not different between groups (19.7% vs 16.7%;
risk ratio, 1.18; 95% CI, 0.58–2.40). There was no significant difference in rates of
air leak.
What do the results of Kirpalani’s nasal intermittent positive pressure ventilation trial
and its substudies mean?
In contrast with the results obtained from the pooled analysis of smaller trials that
favored the use of NIPPV in preterm infants, Kirpalani’s NIPPV trial and its substudies
found no significant benefit of NIPPV with respect to the risk of death or survival
without BPD.11,12,29–31 There may be several reasons for the differences in findings.
First, more immature infants were included in Kirpalani’s NIPPV trial (Tables 2
and 3); failure of noninvasive support is more prevalent in extremely preterm infants
and is associated with a marked increase in the rate of adverse outcomes, including
death and BPD.4,8 In such a high-risk population with RDS due to surfactant-deficient
lungs, collapsing airways and poor muscle strength, a number of infants may still be
inadequately supported with NIPPV despite the modest increase in MAP provided
by additional positive pressure breaths. Second, the pragmatic trial design did not
specify the ventilator device, settings, or use of synchronization. In the NIPPV group,
approximately half of infants received flow-driver-generated NIPPV, typically set
to deliver modest peak pressures, lower than pressures set during ventilator-
generated NIPPV. Indeed, mortality was higher in infants who mostly received flow-
driver-generated NIPPV, possibly due to a higher reintubation rate compared with
infants receiving ventilator-generated NIPPV (adjusted rate ratio for number of reintu-
bations, 1.23; 95% CI, 1.02–1.49).27 Moreover, a subgroup analysis by synchroniza-
tion rather than by device revealed that ventilator-generated NIPPV was mostly
applied in a nonsynchronized manner, and synchronization was more often used dur-
ing flow-driver-generated NIPPV (suggesting that traditional NIPPV settings with short
high-pressure durations were still commonly used during flow-driver-generated
NIPPV, cf. Table 1). Both combinations of device and technique may be associated
with a lack of effective pressure transmission to the lungs, and may contribute to
the finding of no significant benefit of NIPPV.
Meta-Analyses of Trials Comparing Nasal Intermittent Positive Pressure Ventilation
with Continuous Positive Airway Pressure
The updated meta-analyses were performed using RevMan, version 5.4.32 Relevant
studies were identified by searching PubMed, The Cochrane Library, and the refer-
ence lists of included articles. Studies were included if they were RCTs that enrolled
Table 2
Trials comparing NIPPV with CPAP for primary respiratory support (by device and synchronization)

NIPPV CPAP
Set Peak High Pressure
Mean GAa Pressure High Pressure Delivery Rate PEEPb
at Birth [wk] Surfactant Devicef [cm H2O] Duration [s] [per minute] PEEPb [cm H2O] [cm H2O]
1.1.1 Ventilator-generated, nonsynchronized NIPPV
Bisceglia et al,35 2007 NDAc No 1 14–20 NDAc 40 4–6 4–6
Sai Sunil Kishore et al,36 2009 30.8 Mixed 2, 3 15–26 0.30–0.35 50–60 5–6 5–7
Meneses et al,37 2011 29.6 No 4 15–20 0.40–0.50 20–30 4–6 5–6
Armanian et al,38 2014 30.0 No 4 16–20 0.40 40–50 5–6 5–6
Oncel et al,39 2015e 29.2 No 5 15–20 NDAc 20–30 5–6 5–6
Sabzehei et al,40 2018e 30.1 Yes 4 14–20 0.30–0.35 30–50 5–6 5–6

Nasal Intermittent Positive Pressure Ventilation

Skariah & Lewis,41 2019e 31.8 No 2 11–18 0.36–0.40 18–30 3–5 3–5
1.1.2 Ventilator-generated, synchronized NIPPV
Kugelman et al,42 2007 30.9 No 5 14–22 0.30 12–30 6–7 6–7
Salama et al,43 2015 31.2 Mixed 6 5–12 0.30–0.50 15–18 4–6 6
Dursun et al,44 2019e 29.3 No 5 16–24 0.40 30–40 6–8 6–8
Gharehbaghi et al,45 2019e 30.1 No 7 18–20 0.35–0.40 30–40 5–6 5–6
1.1.3 Flow-driver-generated, nonsynchronized NIPPV
Kong et al,46 2012e 32.9 No 8 12–15 0.35–0.50 20–30 4–6 4–6
Aguiar et al,47 2015e 31.0 No 9 8 2 10 6 6–8
Sadeghnia et al,48 2016e 29.9 No 10 8 0.50 30 4 6
1.1.4 Flow-driver-generated, synchronized NIPPV
Lista et al,49 2010 30.3 Yes 9 8 0.50–0.70 30 4.5 6
Wood et al,50 2013 29.8 No 9 6–9 0.3 10 4–6 4–6

(continued on next page)

731
 732
Rüegger et al
Table 2
(continued )
NIPPV CPAP
Set Peak High Pressure
Mean GAa Pressure High Pressure Delivery Rate PEEPb
at Birth [wk] Surfactant Devicef [cm H2O] Duration [s] [per minute] PEEPb [cm H2O] [cm H2O]
1.1.5 Mixed methods
Ramanathan et al,51 2012 27.8 Yes 9, 11 15–20 0.50 30–40 5 5–8
Kirpalani et al,25 2013 26.2 No 2, 3, 9 18d 0.30–0.50d 10–40d 5–8d 5–8d
a
GA, gestational age.
b
PEEP, positive end expiratory pressure.
c
NDA, no data available.
d
Suggested initiating and maximal settings.
e
Trials not yet included in the corresponding meta-analysis of the Cochrane Collaboration.
f
1: Bear Infant Ventilator CUB 750 (Ackrad Laboratories, Cranford, NJ, USA). 2: Drager Babylog 8000 (Drager Medical Inc, Lubeck, Germany). 3: VIP Bird-R Sterling
(Vyaire Medical, Il, USA). 4: Continuous flow ventilator, not specified. 5: SLE 2000 (Specialised Laboratory Equipment, Croydon, UK). 6. Neoport E100 M (DRE Med-
ical, Louisville, KY, USA). 7: Inspiration 5i ventilator (eVent Medical Ltd, Ireland). 8: BiPAP device, not specified. 9: Infant Flow SiPAP System (Vyaire Medical, Il, USA).
10: Fabian (Acutronic Medical Systems AG, Hirzel, Switzerland). 11: Avea CVS Ventilator (Vyaire Medical, Il, USA).
 Table 3
Trials comparing NIPPV with CPAP for postextubation support (by device and synchronization)

NIPPV CPAP
Set Peak High Pressure
Pressure High Pressure Delivery Rate
Mean GAa at Birth [wk] Deviceg [cm H2O] Duration [s] [per minute] PEEPb [cm H2O] PEEPb [cm H2O]
1.2.1 Ventilator-generated, nonsynchronized NIPPV
Khorana et al,52 2008 NDAc 1 Pre-extd Pre-extd Pre-extd Pre-extd Pre-extd
Kahramaner et al,53 2014 28.8 2 Pre-extd 12 NDAc 25 6 6
Jasani et al,54 2016 30.7 1 Pre-extd 14 NDAc Pre-extd 5 5–6
Komatsu et al,55 2016f 30.8 3 16 NDAc 12 6 6
Ribeiro et al,56 2017f 29.6 4 14–16 0.30–0.35 12–18 4–6 4–5
Estay et al,57 2020f 27.9 5 12–18 0.45–0.60 20 5–6 5–6
1.2.2 Ventilator-generated, synchronized NIPPV

Nasal Intermittent Positive Pressure Ventilation

Friedlich et al,58 1999 27.8 6 Pre-extd 0.60 10 4–6 4–6
Barrington et al,59 2001 26.1 6 16 NDAc 12 6 6
Khalaf et al,60 2001 28.0 6 Pre-extd 12 – 14 NDAc Pre-extd 5 4–6
Moretti et al,61 2008 27.0 7 10–20 NDAc Pre-extd 3–5 3–5
Gao et al,62 2010 32.5 5 20 NDAc 40 5 4–8
Ding et al,63 2020f 29.8 8 15–25 NDAc 15–50 4–6 6
1.2.3 Flow-driver-generated, nonsynchronized NIPPV
O’Brien et al,64 2012 27.4 9 8–10 1 20 5–7 5–7
Victor et al,65 2016f 27.3 9 8 1 30 4 6
1.2.4 Mixed methods
Kirpalani et al,25 2013 26.2 2, 9, 10 18e 0.30–0.50e 10–40e 5–8e 5–8e
a
GA, gestational age.
b
PEEP, positive end expiratory pressure.
c
NDA, no data available.
d
pre-ext, pre-extubation settings.
e
Suggested initiating and maximal settings.
f
Trials not yet included in the corresponding meta-analysis of the Cochrane Collaboration.
g
1: Bear Infant Ventilator CUB 750 (Ackrad Laboratories, Cranford, NJ, USA). 2: Drager Babylog 8000 (Drager Medical Inc, Lubeck, Germany). 3. Neoport E100 M
(DRE medical, Louisville, KY, USA). 4. Inter 3/5/5plus (Intermed, Sao Paulo, Brazil). 5: Continuous flow ventilator, not specified. 6. Infantstar 500/950 (Infrasonics, San

733
Diego, CA, USA). 7. Giulia (Ginevri, Rome, Italy). 8. Comen nv8 (Comen Medical, Shenzen, China). 9: Infant Flow SiPAP System (Vyaire Medical, Il, USA). 10: VIP Bird-
R Sterling (Vyaire Medical, Il, USA).
734 Rüegger et al

preterm infants (born <37 weeks’ gestation), compared any form of NIPPV with CPAP,
and reported the primary outcome. Four subgroup analyses included whether NIPPV
was delivered by a ventilator or by a flow-driver-device and whether pressure changes
were synchronized with spontaneous breathing or not. No differentiation was made
between the type of settings (traditional NIPPV vs bilevel CPAP) applied in each trial.
A fixed-effect model was used to pool data of included trials.

Primary respiratory support

This meta-analysis aimed to compare the efficacy of NIPPV versus CPAP when used
as primary respiratory support in preterm infants with RDS who were less than 6 hours
old. We defined the primary outcome as respiratory failure leading to additional venti-
latory support during the first week of life. An early and brief period of endotracheal
ventilation for an INSURE (intubate—surfactant administration—extubate) procedure
was not considered as respiratory failure.
We pooled data from 18 trials and 1900 infants (see Table 2). We added data from 8
newly published trials comprising 850 infants to the existing meta-analysis of the
Cochrane Collaboration.11 In 11 trials, ventilator-generated NIPPV with variable peak
pressures of 12 to 26 cm H2O were used. Five trials used flow-driver-generated support
with peak pressures of 8 to 15 cm H2O. Two trials, including Kirpalani’s NIPPV trial used
mixed methods: both ventilator-generated and flow-driver-generated NIPPV, with or
without synchronization, and with variable pressure settings. None of the included
studies attempted to match the PEEP in the CPAP group with the generated MAP in
the NIPPV group.
Six individual trials reported a significant reduction in rates of respiratory failure dur-
ing the first week of life in infants managed with NIPPV. Twelve showed no significant
difference, and none showed a significant benefit for CPAP. Pooled data from all 18
trials demonstrated a clinically important, 37% relative reduction in the risk of respira-
tory failure with NIPPV (Fig. 1). This beneficial effect was most obvious in the trials us-
ing ventilator-generated NIPPV (combined subgroups 1.1.1 and 1.1.2: RR 0.60; 95%
CI, 0.48–0.76), and was greatest when synchronization was used (subgroup 1.1.2),
with 7 infants needing to be treated with ventilator-generated, synchronized NIPPV
to prevent one respiratory failure. Flow-driver devices provided a smaller (subgroup
1.1.3) and nonsignificant effect (subgroup 1.1.4) on the risk of respiratory failure (com-
bined subgroups 1.1.3 and 1.1.4: RR 0.70; 95% CI, 0.49–1.01). These findings are
consistent with those of the corresponding 2016 Cochrane Review.11

Postextubation respiratory support

This meta-analysis evaluated the efficacy of NIPPV versus CPAP when used as post-
extubation respiratory support for preterm infants. We defined the primary outcome as
respiratory failure leading to additional ventilatory support during the week
postextubation.
Fifteen trials enrolling 2444 infants were included (see Table 3). Data from 5 trials
published between 2016 and 2020 enrolling 1013 infants were added to the existing
meta-analysis of the Cochrane Collaboration.12 Twelve trials used ventilator-
generated NIPPV, 2 trials delivered flow-driver-generated NIPPV, the final study being
the Kirpalani mixed methods study.
Overall, infants extubated to NIPPV had a 22% relative risk reduction for respiratory
failure within the first week postextubation compared with those managed with CPAP
(Fig. 2). Extubation of 12 infants to NIPPV would prevent one case of extubation fail-
ure. Again, this benefit was greatest in trials using ventilator-generated NIPPV (com-
bined subgroups 1.2.1 and 1.2.2: RR 0.51; 95% CI, 0.40–0.65) and was strongest
 Nasal Intermittent Positive Pressure Ventilation 735

Fig. 1. Forest plot of trials comparing NIPPV versus CPAP for primary respiratory support (by
device and synchronization).

when ventilator-generated, synchronized NIPPV was used (subgroup 1.2.2). On

average, only 3 infants would need to be extubated to ventilator-generated, synchro-
nized NIPPV to prevent one case of postextubation failure. No beneficial effect was
found for flow-driver devices (subgroup 1.2.3).

Mortality
Results from 17 trials enrolling 1834 infants could be pooled for this analysis. Overall
and within subgroups, no difference in mortality was noted when NIPPV was
compared with CPAP as primary respiratory support for preterm infants with neonatal
RDS (Table 4). After extubation, no significant reduction in mortality was found in the
meta-analysis of 10 trials and 2178 infants, and no significant difference was detected
when mortality was examined by device or synchronization for either primary or post-
extubation support.
These findings contrast the results of the respective meta-analysis of the Cochrane
Collaboration on NIPPV versus CPAP for preterm neonates after extubation, where a
736 Rüegger et al

Fig. 2. Forest plot of trials comparing NIPPV versus CPAP for postextubation support (by de-
vice and synchronization).

small difference in mortality between treatment groups was reported, favoring NIPPV
(RR 0.69; 95% CI, 0.48–0.99).12

Bronchopulmonary dysplasia
Fourteen of the 18 trials (1534 infants) evaluating NIPPV versus CPAP as primary
respiratory support reported BPD at 36 weeks’ corrected gestational age. We
noted a 28% relative reduction in the risk of BPD with NIPPV (Table 5). Howev-
er, this overall difference was fully attributable to the reduction in BPD seen in
studies using ventilator-generated, synchronized NIPPV. None of the other sub-
analyses showed a significant difference in the rate of BPD between groups.
In the meta-analysis of the Cochrane Collaboration on NIPPV as primary respira-
tory support for preterm infants, no reduction in BPD was observed in any of the
subgroups.11
After extubation, meta-analysis of 11 studies enrolling 2128 infants revealed a
borderline lower rate of BPD when infants were randomized to NIPPV compared
with infants randomized to CPAP (see Table 5). Once again, within subgroups, only
ventilator-generated, synchronized NIPPV was associated with a reduction in BPD.
In the corresponding meta-analysis of the Cochrane Collaboration, both ventilator-
generated (RR 0.69; 95% CI, 0.50–0.95) and synchronized NIPPV (RR 0.64; 95% CI,
0.44–0.95) were associated with a reduction in BPD.
 Table 4
Meta-analysis of trials comparing NIPPV with CPAP for primary and postextubation support

NIPPV CPAP
Number of Trials Deaths Total Deaths Total Risk Ratio (95% CI)
Primary respiratory support
Ventilator-generated, nonsynchronized NIPPV 7 40 390 49 410 0.83 (0.57–1.20)
Ventilator-generated, synchronized NIPPV 4 2 145 3 144 0.76 (0.17–3.30)
Flow-driver-generated, nonsynchronized NIPPV 2 6 146 8 144 0.75 (0.28–1.99)

Nasal Intermittent Positive Pressure Ventilation

Flow-driver-generated, synchronized NIPPV 2 0 80 2 80 0.20 (0.01–4.08)
Mixed methods 2 4 148 5 147 0.78 (0.21–2.83)
Total 17 52 909 67 925 0.79 (0.57–1.09)
Postextubation care
Ventilator-generated, nonsynchronized NIPPV 5 17 238 27 261 0.61 (0.35–1.06)
Ventilator-generated, synchronized NIPPV 2 5 72 7 71 0.70 (0.23–2.11)
Flow-driver-generated, nonsynchronized NIPPV 2 21 337 22 339 0.96 (0.54–1.71)
Flow-driver-generated, synchronized NIPPV 0 — — — — —
Mixed methods 1 35 430 41 430 0.85 (0.55–1.31)
Total 10 78 1077 97 1101 0.80 (0.60–1.06)

Outcome: Mortality during study period.

737
 738
Rüegger et al
Table 5
Meta-analysis of trials comparing NIPPV with CPAP for primary and postextubation support

NIPPV CPAP
Number of Trials BPD Total BPD Total Risk Ratio (95% CI)
Primary Respiratory Support
Ventilator-generated, nonsynchronized NIPPV 4 32 257 43 256 0.73 (0.48–1.11)
Ventilator-generated, synchronized NIPPV 4 9 145 24 144 0.37 (0.18–0.78)
Flow-driver-generated, nonsynchronized NIPPV 2 9 146 7 144 1.27 (0.48–3.32)
Flow-driver-generated, synchronized NIPPV 2 5 80 7 80 0.71 (0.24–2.13)
Mixed methods 2 28 140 34 142 0.85 (0.54–2.72)
Total 14 83 768 115 766 0.72 (0.56–0.93)
Postextubation care
Ventilator-generated, nonsynchronized NIPPV 4 52 209 58 229 0.91 (0.66–1.27)
Ventilator-generated, synchronized NIPPV 4 30 133 45 128 0.63 (0.44–0.91)
Flow-driver-generated, nonsynchronized NIPPV 2 153 328 165 327 0.92 (0.79–1.08)
Flow-driver-generated, synchronized NIPPV 0 — — — — —
Mixed methods 1 144 394 143 380 0.97 (0.81–1.17)
Total 11 379 1064 411 1064 0.91 (0.81–1.01)

Outcome: Bronchopulmonary dysplasia

 Nasal Intermittent Positive Pressure Ventilation 739

SUMMARY

There is clear evidence that NIPPV is superior to CPAP as primary and postextubation
respiratory support for the prevention of respiratory failure in preterm infants with RDS.
For both indications, ventilator-generated, synchronized NIPPV is most effective to
prevent respiratory failure. Results show no reduction in mortality overall or within sub-
groups, irrespective of whether primary or postextubation NIPPV support is delivered.
Longer-term pulmonary benefits include a reduction in BPD, but only with ventilator-
generated, synchronized NIPPV. Implementation of this evidence may be hampered
by the limited availability of ventilators able to deliver synchronized pressure changes.
There is little evidence of harm during NIPPV generated by any device or delivered in
any mode, with no reported increase in abdominal adverse events.
In view of the high heterogeneity among trials included in our meta-analyses, results
may not be generalizable and must be interpreted with caution. It is important for cli-
nicians to understand that not all modes of noninvasive support are the same, and var-
iations in the applied strategy may not provide the same level of benefit. Superiority of
ventilator-generated NIPPV over flow-driver-generated NIPPV is explained by higher
peak pressures used during ventilator-generated NIPPV. If MAPs were matched
across all devices and all modes, there may be little difference between CPAP,
flow-driver-generated NIPPV, and ventilator-generated NIPPV.
Additional data from adequately powered RCTs are warranted to determine the
benefits of NIPPV in smaller and more immature infants. A particular focus should
be placed on clinically relevant outcomes such as death, BPD, and long-term respira-
tory function following prolonged NIPPV use. Moreover, the role of synchronized
NIPPV as primary respiratory support starting directly after birth in the delivery room
deserves further attention.

BEST PRACTICES

 NIPPV is preferable over CPAP as primary and post-extubation respiratory support in preterm
infants with RDS.
 For both indications, ventilator-generated, synchronized NIPPV should be used to prevent
respiratory failure.
 Ventilator-generated, synchronized NIPPV may reduce the risk of bronchopulmonary
dysplasia when used as either primary or post-extubation support in preterm infants, but
is not associated with a decrease in mortality.

CLINICS CARE POINTS

 Not all modes of NIPPV are the same, and variations in the applied strategy may affect the
level of benefit.
 During nonsynchronized NIPPV, most pressure peaks occur during spontaneous expiration
and do not contribute to tidal volume.
 Any advantage of nonsynchronized NIPPV may arise from a higher mean airway pressure
rather than from the effect of the intermittent pressure peaks themselves.
 Synchronization of the positive pressure peaks with the infant’s own breathing efforts results
in a more effective pressure and volume delivery.
740 Rüegger et al

 Superiority of ventilator-generated NIPPV over flow-driver-generated NIPPV is explained by

higher peak pressures used during ventilator-generated NIPPV.
 There is little evidence of harm during NIPPV generated by any device or delivered in any
mode.

DISCLOSURE

The authors have nothing to disclose.

REFERENCES

1. Baraldi E, Filippone M. Chronic lung disease after premature birth. N Engl J Med
2007;357(19):1946–55.
2. Doyle LW, Carse E, Adams A-M, et al. Ventilation in extremely preterm infants and
respiratory function at 8 years. N Engl J Med 2017;377(4):329–37.
3. Subramaniam P, Ho JJ, Davis PG. Prophylactic nasal continuous positive airway
pressure for preventing morbidity and mortality in very preterm infants. Cochrane
Database Syst Rev 2016;6:CD001243.
4. Dargaville PA, Aiyappan A, Paoli AGD, et al. Continuous positive airway pressure
failure in preterm infants: incidence, predictors and consequences. Neonatology
2013;104(1):8–14.
5. SUPPORT Study Group of the Eunice Kennedy Shriver NICHD Neonatal
Research Network. Target ranges of oxygen saturation in extremely preterm in-
fants. N Engl J Med 2010;362(21):1959–69.
6. Morley CJ, Davis PG, Doyle LW, et al. Nasal CPAP or intubation at birth for very
preterm infants. N Engl J Med 2008;358(7):700–8.
7. Sandri F, Plavka R, Ancora G, et al. Prophylactic or early selective surfactant com-
bined with nCPAP in very preterm infants. Pediatrics 2010;125(6):e1402–9.
8. Dargaville PA, Gerber A, Johansson S, et al. Incidence and outcome of CPAP fail-
ure in preterm infants. Pediatrics 2016;138(1):e20153985.
9. Owen LS, Morley CJ, Davis PG. Neonatal nasal intermittent positive pressure
ventilation: a survey of practice in England. Arch Dis Child Fetal Neonatal Ed
2008;93(2):F148.
10. Kieran EA, Walsh H, O’Donnell CPF. Survey of nasal continuous positive airways
pressure (NCPAP) and nasal intermittent positive pressure ventilation (NIPPV)
use in Irish newborn nurseries. Arch Dis Child Fetal Neonatal Ed 2011;96(2):F156.
11. Lemyre B, Laughon M, Bose C, et al. Early nasal intermittent positive pressure venti-
lation (NIPPV) versus early nasal continuous positive airway pressure (NCPAP) for
preterm infants. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2016;12(12):CD005384.
12. Lemyre B, Davis PG, Paoli AGD, et al. Nasal intermittent positive pressure venti-
lation (NIPPV) versus nasal continuous positive airway pressure (NCPAP) for pre-
term neonates after extubation. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2017;2(2):
CD003212.
13. Owen LS, Morley CJ, Davis PG. Do the pressure changes of neonatal non-
synchronised NIPPV (NS nasal intermittent positive pressure ventilation) confer
advantages over cpap, or are high CPAP pressures as effective? Pediatr Res
2011;70(Suppl 5):16.
14. Schmölzer GM, Dawson JA, Kamlin COF, et al. Airway obstruction and gas leak
during mask ventilation of preterm infants in the delivery room. Arch Dis Child
Fetal Neonatal Ed 2011;96(4):F254.
 Nasal Intermittent Positive Pressure Ventilation 741

15. Owen LS, Morley CJ, Davis PG. Pressure variation during ventilator generated
nasal intermittent positive pressure ventilation in preterm infants. Arch Dis Child
Fetal Neonatal Ed 2010;95(5):F359.
16. Owen LS, Morley CJ, Dawson JA, et al. Effects of non-synchronised nasal inter-
mittent positive pressure ventilation on spontaneous breathing in preterm infants.
Arch Dis Child Fetal Neonatal Ed 2011;96(6):F422.
17. Dimitriou G, Greenough A, Laubscher B, et al. Comparison of airway pressure-
triggered and airflow-triggered ventilation in very immature infants. Acta Paediatr
1998;87(12):1256–60.
18. Waitz M, Mense L, Kirpalani H, et al. Nasal intermittent positive pressure ventila-
tion for preterm neonates synchronized or not? Clin Perinatol 2016;43(4):
799–816.
19. Owen LS, Morley CJ, Davis PG. Effects of synchronisation during SiPAP-
generated nasal intermittent positive pressure ventilation (NIPPV) in preterm in-
fants. Arch Dis Child Fetal Neonatal Ed 2015;100(1):F24.
20. Stern DJ, Weisner MD, Courtney SE. Synchronized neonatal non-invasive ventila-
tion-a pilot study: the graseby capsule with bi-level NCPAP. Pediatr Pulm 2014;
49(7):659–64.
21. Chang H-Y, Claure N, D’Ugard C, et al. Effects of synchronization during nasal
ventilation in clinically stable preterm infants. Pediatr Res 2011;69(1):84–9.
22. Owen LS, Manley BJ. Nasal intermittent positive pressure ventilation in preterm
infants: Equipment, evidence, and synchronization. Semin Fetal Neonatal Med
2016;21(3):146–53.
23. Garland JS, Nelson DB, Rice T, et al. Increased risk of gastrointestinal perfora-
tions in neonates mechanically ventilated with either face mask or nasal prongs.
Pediatrics 1985;76(3):406–10.
24. Imbulana DI, Manley BJ, Dawson JA, et al. Nasal injury in preterm infants
receiving non-invasive respiratory support: a systematic review. Arch Dis Child
Fetal Neonatal Ed 2018;103(1):F29.
25. Kirpalani H, Millar D, Lemyre B, et al. A trial comparing noninvasive ventilation
strategies in preterm infants. N Engl J Med 2013;369(7):611–20.
26. Jobe AH, Bancalari E. Bronchopulmonary dysplasia. Am J Resp Crit Care 2012;
163(7):1723–9.
27. Millar D, Lemyre B, Kirpalani H, et al. A comparison of bilevel and ventilator-
delivered non-invasive respiratory support. Arch Dis Child Fetal Neonatal Ed
2016;101(1):21.
28. Bourque SL, Roberts RS, Wright CJ, et al. Nasal intermittent positive pressure
ventilation versus nasal continuous positive airway pressure to prevent primary
noninvasive ventilation failure in extremely low Birthweight infants. J Pediatr
2019;216:218–21.e1.
29. Meneses J, Bhandari V, Alves JG. Nasal intermittent positive-pressure ventilation
vs nasal continuous positive airway pressure for preterm infants with respiratory
distress syndrome: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Arch Pediat Adol Med
2012;166(4):372–6.
30. Ramaswamy VV, Bandyopadhyay T, Nanda D, et al. Efficacy of noninvasive res-
piratory support modes as postextubation respiratory support in preterm neo-
nates: A systematic review and network meta-analysis. Pediatric Pulmonology.
2020;55:2924–39.
31. Ramaswamy VV, More K, Roehr CC, et al. Efficacy of noninvasive respiratory sup-
port modes for primary respiratory support in preterm neonates with respiratory
742 Rüegger et al

distress syndrome: Systematic review and network meta-analysis. Pediatric Pul-

monology. 2020;55:2940–63.
32. Centre TCCNC. Nordic Cochrane centre, the Cochrane collaboration. Review
Manager (RevMan) [Computer program]. Version 5.3. Copenhagen: The Nordic
Cochrane Centre, The Cochrane Collaboration, 2014.
33. Ekhaguere O, Patel S, Kirpalani H. Nasal intermittent mandatory ventilation
versus nasal continuous positive airway pressure before and after invasive venti-
latory support. Clin Perinatol 2019;46(3):517–36.
34. Miedema M, Burg PS, Beuger S, et al. Effect of nasal continuous and biphasic
positive airway pressure on lung volume in preterm infants. J Pediatr 2013;
162(4):691–7.
35. Bisceglia M, Belcastro A, Poerio V, et al. A comparison of nasal intermittent versus
continuous positive pressure delivery for the treatment of moderate respiratory
syndrome in preterm infants. Minerva Pediatr 2007;59(2):91–5.
36. Kishore MSS, Dutta S, Kumar P. Early nasal intermittent positive pressure ventila-
tion versus continuous positive airway pressure for respiratory distress syndrome.
Acta Paediatr 2009;98(9):1412–5.
37. Meneses J, Bhandari V, Alves JG, et al. Noninvasive ventilation for respiratory
distress syndrome: a randomized controlled trial. Pediatrics 2011;127(2):300–7.
38. Armanian A-M, Badiee Z, Heidari G, et al. Initial treatment of respiratory distress
syndrome with nasal intermittent mandatory ventilation versus nasal continuous
positive airway pressure: a randomized controlled trial. Int J Prev Med 2014;
5(12):1543–51.
39. Oncel MY, Arayici S, Uras N, et al. Nasal continuous positive airway pressure
versus nasal intermittent positive-pressure ventilation within the minimally inva-
sive surfactant therapy approach in preterm infants: a randomised controlled
trial. Arch Dis Child Fetal Neonatal Ed 2015;101(4):F323–8.
40. Sabzehei MK, Basiri B, Shokouhi M, et al. A comparative study of treatment
response of respiratory distress syndrome in preterm infants: early nasal intermit-
tent positive pressure ventilation versus early nasal continuous positive airway
pressure. Int J Pediatr 2018;6(10):8339–46.
41. Skariah TA, Lewis LE. Early nasal intermittent positive pressure ventilation
(NIPPV) versus nasal continuous positive airway pressure (NCPAP) for respiratory
distress syndrome (RDS) in infants of 28-36 weeks gestational age: a randomized
controlled trial. Iranian J Neonatal 2019;10(2):1–8.
42. Kugelman A, Feferkorn I, Riskin A, et al. Nasal intermittent mandatory ventilation
versus nasal continuous positive airway pressure for respiratory distress syn-
drome: a randomized, controlled, prospective study. J Pediatr 2007;150(5):
521–6.e1.
43. Salama GSA, Ayyash FF, Al-Rabadi AJ, et al. Nasal-imv versus nasal-CPAP as an
initial mode of respiratory support for premature infants with RDS: a prospective
randomized clinical trial. Rawal Med J 2015;40(2):197–202.
44. Dursun M, Uslu S, Bulbul A, et al. Comparison of early nasal intermittent positive
pressure ventilation and nasal continuous positive airway pressure in preterm in-
fants with respiratory distress syndrome. J Trop Pediatr 2018;65(4):352–60.
45. Gharehbaghi MM, Hosseini MB, Eivazi G, et al. Comparing the efficacy of nasal
continuous positive airway pressure and nasal intermittent positive pressure
ventilation in early management of respiratory distress syndrome in preterm in-
fants. Oman Med J 2019;34(2):99–104.
46. Kong L-K, Kong X-Y, Li L-H, et al. Comparative study on application of duo pos-
itive airway pressure and continuous positive airway pressure in preterm
 Nasal Intermittent Positive Pressure Ventilation 743

neonates with respiratory distress syndrome. Zhongguo Dang Dai Er Ke Za Zhi

2012;14(12):888–92.
47. Aguiar T, Macedo I, Voutsen O, et al. Nasal bilevel versus continuous positive
airway pressure in preterm infants: a randomized controlled trial. J Clin Trials
2015;5(221). 2167–0870.
48. Sadeghnia A, Barekateyn B, Badiei Z, et al. Analysis and comparison of the ef-
fects of N-BiPAP and Bubble-CPAP in treatment of preterm newborns with the
weight of below 1500 grams affiliated with respiratory distress syndrome: a rand-
omised clinical trial. Adv Biomed Res 2016;5(1):3.
49. Lista G, Castoldi F, Fontana P, et al. Nasal continuous positive airway pressure
(CPAP) versus bi-level nasal CPAP in preterm babies with respiratory distress
syndrome: a randomised control trial. Arch Dis Child Fetal Neonatal Ed 2010;
95(2):F85.
50. Wood F, Gupta S, Tin W, et al. G170 randomised controlled trial of synchronised
intermittent positive airway pressure (SiPAPTM) versus continuous positive airway
pressure (CPAP) as a primary mode of respiratory support in preterm infants with
respiratory distress syndrome. Arch Dis Child 2013;98(Suppl 1):A78.
51. Ramanathan R, Sekar KC, Rasmussen M, et al. Nasal intermittent positive pres-
sure ventilation after surfactant treatment for respiratory distress syndrome in pre-
term infants <30 weeks’ gestation: a randomized, controlled trial. J Perinatol
2012;32(5):336–43.
52. Khorana M, Paradeevisut H, Sangtawesin V, et al. A randomized trial of non-
synchronized Nasopharyngeal Intermittent Mandatory Ventilation (nsNIMV) vs.
Nasal Continuous Positive Airway Pressure (NCPAP) in the prevention of extuba-
tion failure in pre-term < 1,500 grams. J Med Assoc Thai 2008;91(Suppl 3):
S136–42.
53. Kahramaner Z, Erdemir A, Turkoglu E, et al. Unsynchronized nasal intermittent
positive pressure versus nasal continuous positive airway pressure in preterm in-
fants after extubation. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med 2013;27(9):926–9.
54. Jasani B, Nanavati R, Kabra N, et al. Comparison of non-synchronized nasal
intermittent positive pressure ventilation versus nasal continuous positive airway
pressure as post-extubation respiratory support in preterm infants with respira-
tory distress syndrome: a randomized controlled trial. J Matern Fetal Neonatal
Med 2015;29(10):1546–51.
55. Komatsu DFR, Diniz EM, Ferraro AA, et al. Randomized controlled trial comparing
nasal intermittent positive pressure ventilation and nasal continuous positive
airway pressure in premature infants after tracheal extubation. Rev Assoc Med
Bras (1992) 2016;62(6):568–74.
56. Ribeiro S, Fontes M, Bhandari V, et al. Noninvasive ventilation in newborns
1,500 g after tracheal extubation: randomized clinical trial. Am J Perinat
2017;34(12):1190–8.
57. Estay AS, Mariani GL, Alvarez CA, et al. Randomized controlled trial of non-
synchronized nasal intermittent positive pressure ventilation versus nasal CPAP
after extubation of VLBW infants. Neonatology 2020;117(2):193–9.
58. Friedlich P, Lecart C, Posen R, et al. A randomized trial of nasopharyngeal-
synchronized intermittent mandatory ventilation versus nasopharyngeal contin-
uous positive airway pressure in very low birth weight infants after extubation.
J Perinatol 1999;19(6):413–8.
59. Barrington KJ, Bull D, Finer NN. Randomized trial of nasal synchronized intermit-
tent mandatory ventilation compared with continuous positive airway pressure af-
ter extubation of very low birth weight infants. Pediatrics 2001;107(4):638–41.
744 Rüegger et al

60. Khalaf MN, Brodsky N, Hurley J, et al. A prospective randomized, controlled trial
comparing synchronized nasal intermittent positive pressure ventilation versus
nasal continuous positive airway pressure as modes of extubation. Pediatrics
2001;108(1):13–7.
61. Moretti C, Gizzi C, Papoff P, et al. Comparing the effects of nasal synchronized
intermittent positive pressure ventilation (nSIPPV) and nasal continuous positive
airway pressure (nCPAP) after extubation in very low birth weight infants. Early
Hum Dev 1999;56(2–3):167–77.
62. Gao W-W, Tan S-Z, Chen Y-B, et al. Randomized trail of nasal synchronized inter-
mittent mandatory ventilation compared with nasal continuous positive airway
pressure in preterm infants with respiratory distress syndrome. Zhongguo
Dang Dai Er Ke Za Zhi 2010;12(7):524–6.
63. Ding F, Zhang J, Zhang W, et al. Clinical study of different modes of non-invasive
ventilation treatment in preterm infants with respiratory distress syndrome after
extubation. Front Pediatr 2020;8:63.
64. O’Brien K, Campbell C, Brown L, et al. Infant flow biphasic nasal continuous pos-
itive airway pressure (BP- NCPAP) vs. infant flow NCPAP for the facilitation of ex-
tubation in infants’ 1,250 grams: a randomized controlled trial. BMC Pediatr
2012;12(1):43.
65. Victor S, Roberts SA, Mitchell S, et al. Biphasic positive airway pressure or contin-
uous positive airway pressure: a randomized trial. Pediatrics 2016;138(2):
e20154095.