Randomised controlled trial of Bubble CPAP versus infant flow driver for successful extubation in preterm infants

ISRCTN ISRCTN83339638
DOI https://doi.org/10.1186/ISRCTN83339638
Secondary identifying numbers N0227165400
Submission date
29/09/2006
Registration date
29/09/2006
Last edited
15/04/2009
Recruitment status
No longer recruiting
Overall study status
Completed
Condition category
Neonatal Diseases
Prospectively registered
Protocol
Statistical analysis plan
Results
Individual participant data

Plain English summary of protocol

Not provided at time of registration

Contact information

Dr Samir Gupta
Scientific

South Tees Hospital Trust
The James Cook University Hospital
Marton Road
Middlesbrough
TS4 3BW
United Kingdom

Study information

Study designRandomised controlled trial
Primary study designInterventional
Secondary study designRandomised controlled trial
Study setting(s)Not specified
Study typeTreatment
Scientific title
Study objectivesTo compare the efficacy and safety of two different systems of delivering nasal continuous positive airway pressure for successful extubation of preterm infants.
Ethics approval(s)Not provided at time of registration
Health condition(s) or problem(s) studiedNeonatal Diseases: Respiratory
InterventionBabies up to 30 week gestation and requiring ventilatory support would be eligible for study pre-extubation. Signed informed parental consent will be sought before randomisation.Babies will be randomised onto one of the currently used CPAP modes: Infant Flow Driver or Bubble CPAP.
Nursing care including monitoring will be as per unit protocols. The successful extubation (primary outcome) will be analysed as per pre-defined clinical and physiological criteria. Each group will be analysed based on duration of ventilation (less than and equal to 2 weeks, and more than 2 weeks). Total number of babies required will be 59 each group.
Intervention typeOther
Primary outcome measureRespiratory failure within 72 hours defined as:
1. Need for re-intubation primarily for respiratory distress AND/OR
2. Uncompensated Respiratory Acidosis (pH<7.2 AND pCO2>8kPa
Secondary outcome measures1. Endotracheal reintubation
2. Duration of CPAP days
3. Chronic Lung Disease, Morbidity, Mortality and Data on complications including gastrointestinal will be collected.
Overall study start date01/10/2004
Completion date30/06/2007

Eligibility

Participant type(s)Patient
Age groupNeonate
SexBoth
Target number of participantsTotal number of babies required will be 59 each group
Key inclusion criteria1. Born between 24 and less than 30 weeks gestation, or with a birth weight of 600 to 1500 grams
2. Endotracheal intubation for any duration
3. Stable or improving respiratory status with inspired oxygen concentration of less than 50%
4. First extubation attempt
5. Signed parental consent
6. Considered ready for extubation by the clinical management team
Key exclusion criteria1. Major congenital malformations, which are known to adversely affect life expectancy
2. Known congenital or acquired upper airway obstruction
3. Neuromuscular disorders
Date of first enrolment01/10/2004
Date of final enrolment30/06/2007

Locations

Countries of recruitment

  • England
  • United Kingdom

Study participating centre

South Tees Hospital Trust
Middlesbrough
TS4 3BW
United Kingdom

Sponsor information

Record Provided by the NHSTCT Register - 2006 Update - Department of Health
Government

The Department of Health, Richmond House, 79 Whitehall
London
SW1A 2NL
United Kingdom

Phone +44 (0)20 7307 2622
Email dhmail@doh.gsi.org.uk
Website http://www.dh.gov.uk/Home/fs/en

Funders

Funder type

Government

South Tees Hospitals NHS Trust (UK)

No information available

NHS R&D Support Funding (UK)

No information available

Results and Publications

Intention to publish date
Individual participant data (IPD) Intention to shareNo
IPD sharing plan summaryNot provided at time of registration
Publication and dissemination planNot provided at time of registration
IPD sharing plan

Study outputs

Output type Details Date created Date added Peer reviewed? Patient-facing?
Results article results 01/05/2009 Yes No