Biphasic positive airway pressure or continuous positive airway pressure : A randomized trial
- Submitting institution
-
King's College London
- Unit of assessment
- 12 - Engineering
- Output identifier
- 95878823
- Type
- D - Journal article
- DOI
-
10.1542/peds.2015-4095
- Title of journal
- Pediatrics
- Article number
- e20154095
- First page
- -
- Volume
- 138
- Issue
- 2
- ISSN
- 0031-4005
- Open access status
- Access exception
- Month of publication
- July
- Year of publication
- 2016
- URL
-
-
- Supplementary information
-
-
- Request cross-referral to
- 1 - Clinical Medicine
- Output has been delayed by COVID-19
- No
- COVID-19 affected output statement
- -
- Forensic science
- No
- Criminology
- No
- Interdisciplinary
- No
- Number of additional authors
-
5
- Research group(s)
-
-
- Proposed double-weighted
- No
- Reserve for an output with double weighting
- No
- Additional information
- Extremely premature babies who are very likely to require ventilation support, which carries the risk of extubation failure. This comprehensive (n=540) randomised trial funded by NIHR (PB-PG-0909-19171) showed that there is no added benefit to using nasal-biphasic positive airway pressure (n-BiPAP) as a non-invasive advancement over standard-of-care nasal-continuous positive airway pressure (n-CPAP). The study reinforced the need to ascertain the efficacy of industry-led ‘technological advancements’ through high-quality randomised trials before introduction to clinical practice. The results have influenced clinical care guidelines worldwide, e.g. as now found in: [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clp.2019.05.004; https://doi.org/10.1186/s13052-019-0707-x; https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pedneo.2019.09.014)].
- Author contribution statement
- -
- Non-English
- No
- English abstract
- -