Biphasic nasal continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) versus nasal CPAP at extubation

ISRCTN ISRCTN94116457
DOI https://doi.org/10.1186/ISRCTN94116457
Secondary identifying numbers L09030A
Submission date
12/07/2010
Registration date
06/10/2010
Last edited
21/08/2020
Recruitment status
No longer recruiting
Overall study status
Completed
Condition category
Respiratory
Prospectively registered
Protocol
Statistical analysis plan
Results
Individual participant data

Plain English summary of protocol

Not provided at time of registration

Contact information

Dr Sridhar Kalyanasundaram
Scientific

Consultant Neonatologist
Department of Neonatology
Wishaw General Hospital
50 Netherton street
Wishaw
ML2 0DP
United Kingdom

Study information

Study designProspective open label randomised controlled trial
Primary study designInterventional
Secondary study designRandomised controlled trial
Study setting(s)Hospital
Study typeTreatment
Participant information sheet Separate document, approved by ethics committee (no link available now)
Scientific titleProspective randomised controlled trial comparing biphasic nasal continuous positive airway pressure (BiPAP) versus nasal continuous positive airway pressure (NCPAP) at extubation of preterm babies
Study acronymBiPAP study
Study objectivesThe aim of this study is to find out whether two levels of supportive airway pressure (biphasic continuous positive airway pressure [BiPAP]) is better at preventing the baby going back to needing reintubation and mechanical ventilation (avoiding extubation failure) compared to a single level of supportive airway pressure (nasal continuous positive airway pressure [NCPAP]) in preterm babies being taken off (extubated) mechanical ventilation.
Ethics approval(s)West of Scotland Regional Ethics Committee (REC) 1, 29/04/2010, ref: 10/S0703/9
Health condition(s) or problem(s) studiedRespiratory distress in preterm babies; Neonatology
InterventionUse of Biphasic CPAP or nasal CPAP (based on randomisation) soon after the baby is extubated from mechanical ventilation. Period of intervention first 72 hours post-extubation.
Intervention typeOther
Primary outcome measureSuccessful extubation, defined as not meeting reintubation/extubation failure criteria until 72 hours after extubation
Secondary outcome measures1. Gastrointestnal (GI) complications
2. Total duration on ventilatory support
3. Incidence of Chronic Lung Disease (CLD) (defined as need for oxygen support beyond 28 days/36 weeks corrected gestational age)
4. Incidence and severity of intraventricular haemorrhage (IVH)
5. Time to full feeds
Overall study start date01/09/2010
Completion date30/08/2014

Eligibility

Participant type(s)Patient
Age groupNeonate
SexBoth
Target number of participants120 babies
Total final enrolment122
Key inclusion criteriaBabies born between 23 weeks and 0 days and 30 weeks and 6 days gestation who are supported with mechanical ventilation for at least 6 hours in the first 28 days of life (first episode of ventilation only)
Key exclusion criteriaBabies with any factor that may affect respiratory effort evident from the initial period, e.g.:
1. Neonatal encephalopathy (involvement of the brain with possible seizures, hypoxic ischaemic encephalopathy [HIE] stage 2 or 3, which is related to perinatal asphyxia)
2. Obvious major birth defects (congenital malformations)
3. Disorders of the muscular system with significant weakness (neuromuscular problems)
Date of first enrolment01/09/2010
Date of final enrolment30/08/2014

Locations

Countries of recruitment

  • Scotland
  • United Kingdom

Study participating centre

Consultant Neonatologist
Wishaw
ML2 0DP
United Kingdom

Sponsor information

NHS Lanarkshire (UK)
Government

c/o Mr Raymond Hamill
R&D Manager
Monklands Hospital
Monkscourt Avenue
Airdrie
ML6 8LL
United Kingdom

Website http://www.nhslanarkshire.org.uk/Pages/default.aspx
ROR logo "ROR" https://ror.org/049prb569

Funders

Funder type

Other

Not provided at time of registration

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 29/05/2019 21/08/2020 Yes No

Editorial Notes

21/08/2020: The following changes have been made:
1. Publication reference added.
2. The final enrolment number has been added from the reference.
18/11/2016: No publications found in PubMed, verifying study status with principal investigator.