Abstract:Preterm infants who are extubated following a period of invasive ventilation via an endotracheal tube are at risk of developing respiratory failure, leading to reintubation. This may be due to apnoea, respiratory acidosis, or hypoxia. Historically, preterm infants were extubated to head box oxygen or low‐flow nasal cannulae. Support with non‐invasive pressure might help improve rates of successful extubation in preterm infants by stabilising the upper airway, improving lung function, and reducing apnoea. This is an update of a review first published in 1997 and last updated in 2003. To determine whether nasal continuous positive airway pressure (NCPAP), applied immediately after extubation of preterm infants, reduces the incidence of extubation failure and the need for additional ventilatory support, without clinically important adverse events. We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and trial registries on 22 September 2023 using a revised strategy. We searched conference abstracts and the reference lists of included studies and relevant systematic reviews. Eligible trials employed random or quasi‐random allocation of preterm infants undergoing extubation. Eligible comparisons were NCPAP (delivered by any device and interface) versus head box oxygen, extubation to room air, or any other form of low‐pressure supplemental oxygen. We grouped the comparators under the term no continuous positive airway pressure (no CPAP). Two review authors independently assessed the risk of bias and extracted data from the included studies. Where studies were sufficiently similar, we performed a meta‐analysis, calculating risk ratios (RRs) with their 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for dichotomous data. For the primary outcomes that showed an effect, we calculated the number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB). We used the GRADE approach to assess the certainty of the evidence for clinically important outcomes. We included nine trials (with 726 infants) in the quantitative synthesis of this updated review. Eight studies were conducted in high‐income countries between 1982 and 2005. One study was conducted in Chile, which was classified as upper‐middle income at the time of the study. All studies used head box oxygen in the control arm. Risk of bias was generally low. However, due to the inherent nature of the intervention, no studies incorporated blinding. Consequently, the neonatal intensive care unit staff were aware of the assigned group for each infant, and we judged all studies at high risk of performance bias. However, we assessed blinding of the outcome assessor (detection bias) as low risk for seven studies because they used objective criteria to define both primary outcomes. NCPAP compared with no CPAP may reduce the risk of extubation failure (RR 0.62, 95% CI 0.51 to 0.76; risk difference (RD) −0.17, 95% −0.23 to −0.10; NNTB 6, 95% CI 4 to 10; I 2 = 55%; 9 studies, 726 infants; low‐certainty evidence) and endotracheal reintubation (RR 0.79, 95% 0.64 to 0.98; RD −0.07, 95% CI −0.14 to −0.01; NNTB 15, 95% CI 8 to 100; I 2 = 65%; 9 studies; 726 infants; very low‐certainty evidence), though the evidence for endotracheal reintubation is very uncertain. NCPAP compared with no CPAP may have little or no effect on bronchopulmonary dysplasia, but the evidence is very uncertain (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.47 to 1.68; RD −0.03, 95% CI −0.22 to 0.15; 1 study, 92 infants; very low‐certainty evidence). No study reported neurodevelopmental outcomes. NCPAP may be more effective than no CPAP in preventing extubation failure in preterm infants if applied immediately after extubation from invasive mechanical ventilation. We are uncertain whether it can reduce the risk of reintubation or bronchopulmonary dysplasia. We have no information on long‐term neurodevelopmental outcomes. Although there is only low‐certainty evidence for the effectiveness of NCPAP immediately after extubation in preterm infants, we consider there is no need for further research on this intervention, which has become standard practice. Key messages • Nasal continuous positive airway pressure (delivering a steady flow of air to the lungs through the nose) may reduce breathing problems encountered after a preterm baby is removed from a breathing machine. • We don't know whether nasal continuous positive airway pressure reduces the risk of going back on the breathing machine or reduces the risk of lung damage that breathing machines can cause. • We think there is no need for further studies on this topic. What is nasal continuous positive airway pressure? Continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) is a form of breathing support, often referred to as a type of noninvasive ventilation. Babies on CPAP breathe by themselves, but the steady flow of pressurised air helps keep their airways and lungs open and makes breathing easier. CPAP is usually delivered t -Abstract Truncated-

Continuous Positive Airway Pressure versus Nasal Intermittent Positive Pressure Ventilation in Preterm Neonates: What if Mean Airway Pressures were Equivalent?

Nonsynchronized nasal intermittent positive pressure ventilation versus continuous positive airway pressure as a primary mode of respiratory support in neonates (26−40 weeks) admitted in a tertiary care center: A randomized controlled trial

CPAP Versus NIPPV Postextubation in Preterm Neonates: A Comparative-Effectiveness Study

Nasal intermittent positive pressure ventilation (NIPPV) versus nasal continuous positive airway pressure (NCPAP) for preterm neonates after extubation

Evaluation of the Effectivenesss of Noninvasive Positive Pressure Ventilation As a Weaning Strategy in Patients with Acute Respiratory Failure

Nasal continuous positive airway pressure immediately after extubation for preventing morbidity in preterm infants

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

[Application of three kinds of non-invasive positive pressure ventilation as a primary mode of ventilation in premature infants with respiratory distress syndrome: a randomized controlled trial]

Comparison of four different non-invasive respiratory support techniques as primary respiratory support in preterm infants

Comparison of noninvasive and intermittent positive pressure ventilation in treating extremely premature and extremely low birth weight infants

Non-invasive versus invasive respiratory support in preterm infants

Positive Pressure Ventilation in Preterm Infants in the Delivery Room: A Review of Current Practices, Challenges, and Emerging Technologies

Effect of Nasal Continuous Positive Airway Pressure on Infants With Meconium Aspiration Syndrome: A Randomized Clinical Trial

Early versus delayed continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) for respiratory distress in preterm infants

Post-extubation using high nCPAP: are we ready for the change?

Non-invasive high-frequency oscillatory ventilation (NHFOV) versus nasal continuous positive airway pressure (NCPAP) for preterm infants: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Safety of bubble nasal intermittent positive pressure ventilation (NIPPV) versus bubble nasal continuous positive airway pressure (NCPAP) in preterm infants with respiratory distress

State of the art on neonatal noninvasive respiratory support: How physiological and technological principles explain the clinical outcomes

Comparison of Efficacy of Pressure Controlled vs. Traditional Manual Mask Ventilation for Newborn Resuscitation - A Simulation-Based Pilot Randomized Control Trial

Decrease in delivery room intubation rates after use of nasal intermittent positive pressure ventilation in the delivery room for resuscitation of very low birth weight infants

A Meta-Analysis of Nasal Intermittent Positive Pressure Ventilation in Treatment of Respiratory Distress Syndrome in Premature Infants