Very Low Birth Weight InfantENTARESNCT03548324
Enteral Nutrition Tolerance And REspiratory Support (ENTARES)
A study testing HHHFNC and NCPAP in people with Very Low Birth Weight Infant and Respiratory Distress Syndrome in Premature Infant, run by University of Turin, Italy at 13 sites in Italy.
Trial summary
This research study aims to evaluate the relation between non-invasive ventilation and feeding tolerance in preterms with respiratory distress syndrome (RDS). To this purpose a multicenter randomized controlled trial was designed. Read more about this study
- Who is it for?
- Ages 25 to 29 weeks
- Conditions the study is for
- Very Low Birth Weight Infant, Respiratory Distress Syndrome in Premature Infant, Enteral Feeding Intolerance
- What is being tested?
- HHHFNC and NCPAP
- Type of treatment
- Medical device
- Could I receive a placebo?
- No, everyone receives an active treatment
- How many people
- 280 participants
- Where
- 13 sitesItaly
- Study dates
- 2 Jan 2019to 30 Oct 2021
- Phase
- Interventional
- Are there results?
- None posted in the registry
Key requirements
Who can take part, as listed by the sponsor. Only the study team can confirm whether you are eligible, so take this list to your doctor.
- Ages 25 to 29 weeks
- All sexes
- No healthy volunteers
- Child
Who may be able to join
- diagnosis of RDS
- stability on HHHFNC or NCPAP since at least 48 hours (SatO2 TC 90-95%, pCO2 ≤ 60 mmHg, FiO2 < 40%, Silverman score ≤ 6, ≤ 2 apnea episodes/hour with CPAP ≤ 7 cmH2O if on NCPAP and flow ≤ 6 L/min if on HHHFNC )
- ≤ 7 days of life
- suitability to start enteral feeding (if not already started)
- parental written consent
Who cannot join
- neurological or surgical diseases
- sepsis
- chromosomal abnormalities or major malformations
Trial locations and contacts
13 sites in 1 country.
13 sites in 1 country
Italy13 sites
AOUC Policlinico di Bari
Bari, Bari (BA)
ASL Ospedale Di Venere
Bari, Bari (BA)
Ospedale Sana Croce e Carle
Cuneo, CN
AOU Careggi
Florence, Firenze (FI)
ASST Grande Ospedale Metropolitano Niguarda
Milan, Milano (MI)
Fondazione IRCCS Ca' Granda Ospedale Maggiore Policlinico (Mangiagalli)
Milan, Milano (MI)
Ospedale dei Bambini Vittore Buzzi
Milan, MI
AOU Federico II
Naples, Napoli (NA)
Ospedale San Matteo
Pavia, PV
Fondazione Policlinico Universitario A. Gemelli
Roma, Roma (RM)
AOU Città della Salute e della Scienza di Torino - Ospedale S.Anna
Torino, Torino (TO)
AOU Città della Salute e della Scienza di Torino - Ospedale S.Anna
Torino, TO, 10126
ASST Sette Laghi Polo Universitario
Varese, Varese (VA)
About this study
Official title: Enteral Nutrition Tolerance and Non-invasive Respiratory Support in Preterm Infants
This research study aims to evaluate the relation between non-invasive ventilation and feeding tolerance in preterms with respiratory distress syndrome (RDS).
To this purpose a multicenter randomized controlled trial was designed. It will involve 13 neonatal intensive care units (NICUs) in Italy and will be coordinated by the NICU of the University of Turin.
Read more
The study focuses on the impact of two non-invasive respiratory support techniques (NCPAP and HHHFNC) on feeding intolerance and gastrointestinal complications to identify which technique is the most effective and safe in preterms with RDS. Further aim is to identify which technique could be the most suitable for full enteral feeding achievement and acquisition of oral feeding. Improving enteral feeding tolerance and promoting oral feeding could improve clinical outcomes and reduce risks and costs of prolonged hospital stay.
Further aim is to evaluate the response to NCPAP and HHHFNC in the treatment of RDS, focusing on a population of extremely low preterms.
Read the detailed description
BACKGROUND:
Respiratory distress syndrome (RDS) is a common condition in premature infants and one of the major cause of neonatal mortality. For many years, preterm infants with RDS have been treated with mechanical ventilation increasing risks of acute lung injury and long-term morbidity, as bronchopulmonary dysplasia (BPD). Early nasal continuous positive airway pressure (NCPAP) treatment combined with surfactant replacement therapy decreases the need for mechanical ventilation and has been recommended as first line treatment for RDS. However, NCPAP has significant limitations, mainly related to the type of interface needed. Excessive leak around the prongs or mask and through the mouth can lead to inadequate support, whereas excessive pressure may result in pneumothorax and damage of the nose and face. Moreover, the bulky fixation devices obscure the infant's face both interfering with feeding and positioning. In recent years, heated humidified high-flow nasal cannula (HHHFNC) has been studied as an alternative non-invasive respiratory supports (NIReS). HHHFNC became popular partially thanks to some perceived advantages related to the type of interface used. Cannulae are easier to apply than NCPAP prongs or mask, may be more comfortable for infants, and may enable easier access to babies' faces, thus facilitating feeding and parental bonding. Whereas practical advantages seem to be established there is controversy about HHHFNC efficacy as respiratory support. Recent studies support that HHHFNC is as effective as NCPAP for the primary treatment of RDS, but evidences are still insufficient and data are still lacking, especially for the extremely preterm population (<28 weeks of gestation). A recent Cochrane comparing HHHFNC with other NIReS showed equivalent rates of treatment failure and similar rates of BPD when used as a post-extubation support in preterm infants. With equivalent effectiveness, the choice of the most adequate NIReS should consider the impact on the health status of the premature evaluating, above all, the effect on nutrition and growth. Along with RDS, feeding intolerance (FI) represents a relevant issue in preterm infants and the coexistence of the two represents a great challenge for the neonatologist. Because of gastrointestinal immaturity, almost 1:3 preterm infants develops clinical symptoms of FI causing interruptions of feeding which delays the establishment of adequate enteral nutrition and prolongs the need for parental nutrition thus increasing the risk of infections and prolonging hospital stay. Avoiding FI and its complication, as necrotizing enterocolitis (NEC), is a priority for the neonatologist, who often faces the challenge of interpreting the clinical and prognostic significance of common and aspecific signs of FI. Clear identification of the parameters that should be evaluated to identify FI is still lacking in literature, although, among controversy, the presence of gastric residuals, vomits and/or regurgitations, abdominal distension and the onset of crises of apnea/bradycardia are considered the most frequent signs. Literature and clinical practise suggest that a correlation between non-invasive ventilation and the occurrence of FI and NEC exists even if the mechanisms through which ventilation may induce FI and its incidence in ventilated infants are still unclear. Considering NIReS, the most common hypothesis is that pressurized gasses, that are not completely conveyed to the airways, could cause bowel distension. Bowel distension in infants on CPAP was described by Jaile et al. as CPAP belly syndrome but no inferences about feeding tolerance and risk of NEC was drawn. More recent studies evaluated the effect of CPAP on mesenteric flow and gastric emptying suggesting a role of CPAP as a risk factor for FI. No specific studies have been designed to evaluate the impact of different NIReS on FI and the occurrence of NEC, which are generally evaluated as secondary outcomes, susceptible to data analysis and patient selection biases. Our hypothesis is that different techniques of NIReS may have different impact on feeding issues in preterm infants. Therefore, our study will focus on the impact that the two most common NIReS (NCPAP and HHHFNC) have on feeding.
PROJECT AIMS AND DESIGN:
Aim of the study is to evaluate the effects on feeding tolerance of different NIReS techniques (NCPAP vs HHHFNC) in preterm infants with RDS and to evaluate their impact on full enteral feeding achievement and acquisition of oral feeding. Further aim is to evaluate the response to NCPAP and HHHFNC as treatment for RDS in extremely preterm infants. To these purposes a multicenter randomized controlled trial was designed. The research project will involve 13 neonatal intensive care units (NICU) in Italy and will be coordinated by the NICU of the University of Turin.
PATIENTS:
Basing on a population of infants with a gestational age <30 weeks and consecutively admitted to the NICUs of each research unit from January to June 2017 (mean time of FEF: 19.6 days, delta: 5.7) and considering a ratio between the subjects of the two arms of 1:1, the sample size to observe a difference of 30% between the 2 arms has been set at 141 patients per arm.
PROTOCOL:
After randomization each infant will be subsequently enrolled into the study and treated with NCPAP or HHHFNC as per randomization. Each research unit will refer to its own protocols for ventilation and nutrition, although respecting some minimal standard criteria and indications, common and approved by all research units. Common criteria for ventilation regard the suggested initial setup of NCPAP and HHHFNC and the indications suggested to try weaning and define failure and are listed below:
Suggested initial setup:
CPAP between 5 and 7 cmH2O if on NCPAP and flow between 4 and 7 L/min if on HHHFNC; FiO2 is set as to reach pO2 = 50 - 60 mmHg and SatO2 TC = 90 - 95%.
Criteria to try weaning:
CPAP < 4 cmH2O if on NCPAP and flow < 2 if on HHHFNC with FiO2 < 25% to maintain pO2 = 50 - 60 mmHg and SatO2 TC = 90 - 95%.
Failure criteria:
- FiO2 > 40%
- pH < 7.2
- pCO2 > 65 mmHg
- ≥ 3 episodes of desaturations (SatO2 TC ≤ 80%) per hour
- ≥ 3 episodes of apnea (> 20 sec) and/or bradycardia (FC ≤ 80 bpm) per hour
- Silverman score > 6
The indications for the interruption of feeding are based on abdominal examination, on the occurrence of vomits/regurgitations and crises of apnea/bradycardia and on the evaluation of alvus and gastric residual volumes, if required by the protocol of the unit. The maximum cut-off for feeding progression is set at 30 mL/Kg/day. Data on ventilation, nutrition, growth and clinical events will be collected from enrollment to discharge.
DATA ANALYSIS:
Data will be analysed according to an intention-to-treat model. Therefore, data from all infants enrolled into the study will be considered for the analysis. Death and transfer to another hospital, before reaching full enteral feeding, are the only two reasons for exclusion. The primary outcome will be evaluated by a survival analysis with non-parametric distribution. Secondary outcomes will be evaluated by Fisher's exact test or appropriate generalized linear models.
EXPECTED RESULTS AND IMPACT ON CLINICAL PRACTICE:
The identification of the most suitable NIReS for preterm infants with RDS and FI could reduce gastrointestinal complications, improve growth and reduce hospital stay, thus improving quality of life of infants and their family and reducing health costs. The evaluation of the timing of oral feeding could be useful to understand the influence that NIReS techniques have on the development of sucking-swallowing coordination. The evaluation of the response to NCPAP and HHHFNC could clarify their efficacy as treatment for RDS in extremely preterm infants.
- Conditions
- Very Low Birth Weight Infant, Respiratory Distress Syndrome in Premature Infant, Enteral Feeding Intolerance
- Being tested
- HHHFNC, NCPAP
- Keywords
- Feeding Tolerance, RDS, HFNC, NCPAP, Preterm, NEC, Enteral Nutrition, Non Invasive Respiratory Support, Very Low Birth Weight Infant
- Medical subject headings
- Premature Birth
What participants receive
What participants receive. In a randomised study each person is assigned to one group by chance.
HHHFNCDevice
Application to HHHFNC to treat respiratory distress syndrome in preterm infants previously demonstrated to be stable on a non-invasive respiratory support (HHHFNC or NCPAP).
NCPAPDevice
Application to NCPAP to treat respiratory distress syndrome in preterm infants previously demonstrated to be stable on a non-invasive respiratory support (HHHFNC or NCPAP).
| Study group | Role | What they receive |
|---|---|---|
| HHHFNC | Active comparator | Heated Humidified High Flow Nasal Cannulae Receives: Device: HHHFNC |
| NCPAP | Active comparator | Nasal Continuous Positive Air Pressure Receives: Device: NCPAP |
What is being measured
The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.
Full Enteral Feeding (FEF) time
Time to reach Full Enteral Feeding, defined as an enteral intake of 150 mL/kg/die (n. of days)
Measured: From date of randomization until the date of hospital discharge or date of death, whichever came first, assessed up to 6 months
Secondary outcomes (14)
Half Enteral Feeding (HEF) time
Time to reach Full Enteral Feeding/2, defined as an enteral intake of 75 mL/kg/die (n. of days)
Measured: From date of randomization until the date of hospital discharge or date of death, whichever came first, assessed up to 6 months
Enteral feeding interruptions
Median number of feeding interruptions per day
Measured: From date of randomization until the date of hospital discharge or date of death, whichever came first, assessed up to 6 months
Not given feeds
Median number of not given feeds per day
Measured: From date of randomization until the date of hospital discharge or date of death, whichever came first, assessed up to 6 months
Pathologic gastric residuals
Median number of pathologic gastric residuals per day
Measured: From date of randomization until the date of hospital discharge or date of death, whichever came first, assessed up to 6 months
Vomits and/or regurgitations
Median number of vomits and/or regurgitations per day
Measured: From date of randomization until the date of hospital discharge or date of death, whichever came first, assessed up to 6 months
Abdominal distension
Median abdominal distension score per day
Measured: From date of randomization until the date of hospital discharge or date of death, whichever came first, assessed up to 6 months
Beginning of oral feeding
Post-menstrual age when bottle- or breast-feeding is started
Measured: From date of randomization until the date of hospital discharge or date of death, whichever came first, assessed up to 6 months
Full oral feeding time
Post-menstrual age when full bottle- or breast-feeding is achieved
Measured: From date of randomization until the date of hospital discharge or date of death, whichever came first, assessed up to 6 months
Weight growth
Weight growth evaluated through Δ z-score analysis
Measured: From date of randomization until the date of hospital discharge or date of death, whichever came first, assessed up to 6 months
Duration of respiratory support assigned at randomization
Time during which the non-invasive respiratory support device assigned at randomization is maintained
Measured: From date of randomization until the date of hospital discharge or date of death, whichever came first, assessed up to 6 months
Total duration of respiratory support need
Time during which any kind of respiratory support is needed
Measured: From date of randomization until the date of hospital discharge or date of death, whichever came first, assessed up to 6 months
Failure of the respiratory support assigned at randomization
Failure of the respiratory support assigned and need for mechanical ventilation or different kind of respiratory support (n. of days)
Measured: From date of randomization until the date of hospital discharge or date of death, whichever came first, assessed up to 6 months
Length of hospital stay
Total duration of hospital stay (n. of days)
Measured: From date of randomization until the date of hospital discharge or date of death, whichever came first, assessed up to 6 months
Complications
Occurrence of complications as NEC, bowel perforation, pneumothorax, BPD, retinopathy of the premature.
Measured: From date of randomization until the date of hospital discharge or date of death, whichever came first, assessed up to 6 months
Timeline
From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.
- First posted7 Jun 2018
- Study start2 Jan 2019
- Primary completion30 Sep 2021
- Study completion30 Oct 2021
Resources
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govThe registry entry this page is built from, with its full change history.
- Publications (16)Papers the sponsor has linked to this study.
- Other trials for Very Low Birth Weight InfantStudies of the same condition, open and under way.
- What the trial phases meanHow a treatment moves from first tests in people to approval.
More details
For doctors and researchers: how the study is designed, who runs it, and its registry IDs.
Study design
- Study type
- Interventional
- Phase
- Phase N/A
- Primary purpose
- Treatment
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Parallel groups
- Model description
- Two arms multicenter randomized controlled trial designed according to the intention-to-treat model. The assignement to one of the two arms (NCPAP or HHHFNC) is by block randomization. The randomization program is designed to obtain, in each research unit, a balance between the two arms according to gestation age (GA \<28 weeks and GA ≥ 28 weeks).
- Masking
- None (open label)
- Enrolment
- 280 participants (actual)
Sponsor and investigators
- Lead sponsor
- University of Turin, Italy
- Sponsor type
- University, hospital or other
- Responsible party
- Principal investigator, Francesco Cresi, MD, PhD, University of Turin, Italy
- Investigators
- Francesco Cresi, MD, PhD, Study director, Città della Salute e della Scienza, S.C. Neonatologia U., University of Turin
IDs, dates and publications
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT03548324
- Sponsor's protocol ID
- ENTARES
- Acronym
- ENTARES
- Status last verified
- Aug 2022
- First submitted
- 28 Apr 2018
- Last updated
- 23 Aug 2022
- Results posted
- No
- Data monitoring committee
- No
- FDA-regulated drug
- No
- FDA-regulated device
- No
Publications
Davies PL, Maxwell NC, Kotecha S. The role of inflammation and infection in the development of chronic lung disease of prematurity. Adv Exp Med Biol. 2006;582:101-10. doi: 10.1007/0-387-33026-7_9.
PubMed 16802622Lista G, Maturana A, Moya FR. Achieving and maintaining lung volume in the preterm infant: from the first breath to the NICU. Eur J Pediatr. 2017 Oct;176(10):1287-1293. doi: 10.1007/s00431-017-2984-y. Epub 2017 Aug 10.
PubMed 28795220Aly H. Ventilation without tracheal intubation. Pediatrics. 2009 Aug;124(2):786-9. doi: 10.1542/peds.2009-0256. Epub 2009 Jul 27. No abstract available.
PubMed 19651592Ramanathan R, Sekar KC, Rasmussen M, Bhatia J, Soll RF. Nasal intermittent positive pressure ventilation after surfactant treatment for respiratory distress syndrome in preterm infants <30 weeks' gestation: a randomized, controlled trial. J Perinatol. 2012 May;32(5):336-43. doi: 10.1038/jp.2012.1. Epub 2012 Feb 2.
PubMed 22301528Fischer HS, Buhrer C. Avoiding endotracheal ventilation to prevent bronchopulmonary dysplasia: a meta-analysis. Pediatrics. 2013 Nov;132(5):e1351-60. doi: 10.1542/peds.2013-1880. Epub 2013 Oct 21.
PubMed 24144716Schmolzer GM, Kumar M, Pichler G, Aziz K, O'Reilly M, Cheung PY. Non-invasive versus invasive respiratory support in preterm infants at birth: systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ. 2013 Oct 17;347:f5980. doi: 10.1136/bmj.f5980.
PubMed 24136633Wilkinson D, Andersen C, O'Donnell CP, De Paoli AG, Manley BJ. High flow nasal cannula for respiratory support in preterm infants. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2016 Feb 22;2(2):CD006405. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD006405.pub3.
PubMed 26899543Kotecha SJ, Adappa R, Gupta N, Watkins WJ, Kotecha S, Chakraborty M. Safety and Efficacy of High-Flow Nasal Cannula Therapy in Preterm Infants: A Meta-analysis. Pediatrics. 2015 Sep;136(3):542-53. doi: 10.1542/peds.2015-0738. Epub 2015 Aug 17.
PubMed 26283781Yoder BA, Manley B, Collins C, Ives K, Kugelman A, Lavizzari A, McQueen M. Consensus approach to nasal high-flow therapy in neonates. J Perinatol. 2017 Jul;37(7):809-813. doi: 10.1038/jp.2017.24. Epub 2017 Mar 23.
PubMed 28333157Salvo V, Lista G, Lupo E, Ricotti A, Zimmermann LJI, Gavilanes AWD, Gitto E, Colivicchi M, Ferrau V, Gazzolo D. Comparison of three non-invasive ventilation strategies (NSIPPV/BiPAP/NCPAP) for RDS in VLBW infants. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2018 Nov;31(21):2832-2838. doi: 10.1080/14767058.2017.1357693. Epub 2017 Aug 1.
PubMed 28718356Mihatsch WA, Pohlandt F, Franz AR, Flock F. Early feeding advancement in very low-birth-weight infants with intrauterine growth retardation and increased umbilical artery resistance. J Pediatr Gastroenterol Nutr. 2002 Aug;35(2):144-8. doi: 10.1097/00005176-200208000-00008.
PubMed 12187288Parker L, Torrazza RM, Li Y, Talaga E, Shuster J, Neu J. Aspiration and evaluation of gastric residuals in the neonatal intensive care unit: state of the science. J Perinat Neonatal Nurs. 2015 Jan-Mar;29(1):51-9; quiz E2. doi: 10.1097/JPN.0000000000000080.
PubMed 25633400Li YF, Lin HC, Torrazza RM, Parker L, Talaga E, Neu J. Gastric residual evaluation in preterm neonates: a useful monitoring technique or a hindrance? Pediatr Neonatol. 2014 Oct;55(5):335-40. doi: 10.1016/j.pedneo.2014.02.008. Epub 2014 Aug 14.
PubMed 25129325Gephart SM, Fleiner M, Kijewski A. The ConNECtion Between Abdominal Signs and Necrotizing Enterocolitis in Infants 501 to 1500 g. Adv Neonatal Care. 2017 Feb;17(1):53-64. doi: 10.1097/ANC.0000000000000345.
PubMed 27754992Cresi F, Maggiora E, Lista G, Dani C, Borgione SM, Spada E, Ferroglio M, Bertino E, Coscia A; ENTARES Study Group. Effect of Nasal Continuous Positive Airway Pressure vs Heated Humidified High-Flow Nasal Cannula on Feeding Intolerance in Preterm Infants With Respiratory Distress Syndrome: The ENTARES Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA Netw Open. 2023 Jul 3;6(7):e2323052. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2023.23052.
PubMed 37436750
Study at a glance
From the registry record, last updated by the sponsor on 23 Aug 2022. Recruitment status is as the sponsor reported it: confirm with the study team.
- Official title
- Enteral Nutrition Tolerance and Non-invasive Respiratory Support in Preterm Infants
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT03548324
- Acronym / sponsor ID
- ENTARES / ENTARES
- Conditions
- Very Low Birth Weight Infant, Respiratory Distress Syndrome in Premature Infant, Enteral Feeding Intolerance
- Keywords
- Feeding Tolerance, RDS, HFNC, NCPAP, Preterm, NEC, Enteral Nutrition, Non Invasive Respiratory Support
- Study type
- Interventional
- Recruitment status
- Completed
- Enrolment
- 280 participants (actual)
- Lead sponsor
- University of Turin, ItalyUniversity, hospital or other
- Study start
- 2 Jan 2019 (actual)
- Primary completion
- 30 Sep 2021 (actual)
- Study completion
- 30 Oct 2021 (actual)
- First posted
- 7 Jun 2018 (actual)
- Results
- Not posted in the source record
Clinical summary
The research question as the sponsor registered it. This describes what the study plans to test, not what it found.
This research study aims to evaluate the relation between non-invasive ventilation and feeding tolerance in preterms with respiratory distress syndrome (RDS).
To this purpose a multicenter randomized controlled trial was designed. It will involve 13 neonatal intensive care units (NICUs) in Italy and will be coordinated by the NICU of the University of Turin.
The study focuses on the impact of two non-invasive respiratory support techniques (NCPAP and HHHFNC) on feeding intolerance and gastrointestinal complications to identify which technique is the most effective and safe in preterms with RDS. Further aim is to identify which technique could be the most suitable for full enteral feeding achievement and acquisition of oral feeding. Improving enteral feeding tolerance and promoting oral feeding could improve clinical outcomes and reduce risks and costs of prolonged hospital stay.
Further aim is to evaluate the response to NCPAP and HHHFNC in the treatment of RDS, focusing on a population of extremely low preterms.
Detailed description
BACKGROUND:
Respiratory distress syndrome (RDS) is a common condition in premature infants and one of the major cause of neonatal mortality. For many years, preterm infants with RDS have been treated with mechanical ventilation increasing risks of acute lung injury and long-term morbidity, as bronchopulmonary dysplasia (BPD). Early nasal continuous positive airway pressure (NCPAP) treatment combined with surfactant replacement therapy decreases the need for mechanical ventilation and has been recommended as first line treatment for RDS. However, NCPAP has significant limitations, mainly related to the type of interface needed. Excessive leak around the prongs or mask and through the mouth can lead to inadequate support, whereas excessive pressure may result in pneumothorax and damage of the nose and face. Moreover, the bulky fixation devices obscure the infant's face both interfering with feeding and positioning. In recent years, heated humidified high-flow nasal cannula (HHHFNC) has been studied as an alternative non-invasive respiratory supports (NIReS). HHHFNC became popular partially thanks to some perceived advantages related to the type of interface used. Cannulae are easier to apply than NCPAP prongs or mask, may be more comfortable for infants, and may enable easier access to babies' faces, thus facilitating feeding and parental bonding. Whereas practical advantages seem to be established there is controversy about HHHFNC efficacy as respiratory support. Recent studies support that HHHFNC is as effective as NCPAP for the primary treatment of RDS, but evidences are still insufficient and data are still lacking, especially for the extremely preterm population (<28 weeks of gestation). A recent Cochrane comparing HHHFNC with other NIReS showed equivalent rates of treatment failure and similar rates of BPD when used as a post-extubation support in preterm infants. With equivalent effectiveness, the choice of the most adequate NIReS should consider the impact on the health status of the premature evaluating, above all, the effect on nutrition and growth. Along with RDS, feeding intolerance (FI) represents a relevant issue in preterm infants and the coexistence of the two represents a great challenge for the neonatologist. Because of gastrointestinal immaturity, almost 1:3 preterm infants develops clinical symptoms of FI causing interruptions of feeding which delays the establishment of adequate enteral nutrition and prolongs the need for parental nutrition thus increasing the risk of infections and prolonging hospital stay. Avoiding FI and its complication, as necrotizing enterocolitis (NEC), is a priority for the neonatologist, who often faces the challenge of interpreting the clinical and prognostic significance of common and aspecific signs of FI. Clear identification of the parameters that should be evaluated to identify FI is still lacking in literature, although, among controversy, the presence of gastric residuals, vomits and/or regurgitations, abdominal distension and the onset of crises of apnea/bradycardia are considered the most frequent signs. Literature and clinical practise suggest that a correlation between non-invasive ventilation and the occurrence of FI and NEC exists even if the mechanisms through which ventilation may induce FI and its incidence in ventilated infants are still unclear. Considering NIReS, the most common hypothesis is that pressurized gasses, that are not completely conveyed to the airways, could cause bowel distension. Bowel distension in infants on CPAP was described by Jaile et al. as CPAP belly syndrome but no inferences about feeding tolerance and risk of NEC was drawn. More recent studies evaluated the effect of CPAP on mesenteric flow and gastric emptying suggesting a role of CPAP as a risk factor for FI. No specific studies have been designed to evaluate the impact of different NIReS on FI and the occurrence of NEC, which are generally evaluated as secondary outcomes, susceptible to data analysis and patient selection biases. Our hypothesis is that different techniques of NIReS may have different impact on feeding issues in preterm infants. Therefore, our study will focus on the impact that the two most common NIReS (NCPAP and HHHFNC) have on feeding.
PROJECT AIMS AND DESIGN:
Aim of the study is to evaluate the effects on feeding tolerance of different NIReS techniques (NCPAP vs HHHFNC) in preterm infants with RDS and to evaluate their impact on full enteral feeding achievement and acquisition of oral feeding. Further aim is to evaluate the response to NCPAP and HHHFNC as treatment for RDS in extremely preterm infants. To these purposes a multicenter randomized controlled trial was designed. The research project will involve 13 neonatal intensive care units (NICU) in Italy and will be coordinated by the NICU of the University of Turin.
PATIENTS:
Basing on a population of infants with a gestational age <30 weeks and consecutively admitted to the NICUs of each research unit from January to June 2017 (mean time of FEF: 19.6 days, delta: 5.7) and considering a ratio between the subjects of the two arms of 1:1, the sample size to observe a difference of 30% between the 2 arms has been set at 141 patients per arm.
PROTOCOL:
After randomization each infant will be subsequently enrolled into the study and treated with NCPAP or HHHFNC as per randomization. Each research unit will refer to its own protocols for ventilation and nutrition, although respecting some minimal standard criteria and indications, common and approved by all research units. Common criteria for ventilation regard the suggested initial setup of NCPAP and HHHFNC and the indications suggested to try weaning and define failure and are listed below:
Suggested initial setup:
CPAP between 5 and 7 cmH2O if on NCPAP and flow between 4 and 7 L/min if on HHHFNC; FiO2 is set as to reach pO2 = 50 - 60 mmHg and SatO2 TC = 90 - 95%.
Criteria to try weaning:
CPAP < 4 cmH2O if on NCPAP and flow < 2 if on HHHFNC with FiO2 < 25% to maintain pO2 = 50 - 60 mmHg and SatO2 TC = 90 - 95%.
Failure criteria:
- FiO2 > 40%
- pH < 7.2
- pCO2 > 65 mmHg
- ≥ 3 episodes of desaturations (SatO2 TC ≤ 80%) per hour
- ≥ 3 episodes of apnea (> 20 sec) and/or bradycardia (FC ≤ 80 bpm) per hour
- Silverman score > 6
The indications for the interruption of feeding are based on abdominal examination, on the occurrence of vomits/regurgitations and crises of apnea/bradycardia and on the evaluation of alvus and gastric residual volumes, if required by the protocol of the unit. The maximum cut-off for feeding progression is set at 30 mL/Kg/day. Data on ventilation, nutrition, growth and clinical events will be collected from enrollment to discharge.
DATA ANALYSIS:
Data will be analysed according to an intention-to-treat model. Therefore, data from all infants enrolled into the study will be considered for the analysis. Death and transfer to another hospital, before reaching full enteral feeding, are the only two reasons for exclusion. The primary outcome will be evaluated by a survival analysis with non-parametric distribution. Secondary outcomes will be evaluated by Fisher's exact test or appropriate generalized linear models.
EXPECTED RESULTS AND IMPACT ON CLINICAL PRACTICE:
The identification of the most suitable NIReS for preterm infants with RDS and FI could reduce gastrointestinal complications, improve growth and reduce hospital stay, thus improving quality of life of infants and their family and reducing health costs. The evaluation of the timing of oral feeding could be useful to understand the influence that NIReS techniques have on the development of sucking-swallowing coordination. The evaluation of the response to NCPAP and HHHFNC could clarify their efficacy as treatment for RDS in extremely preterm infants.
Study design
- Primary purpose
- Treatment
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Parallel groups
- Masking
- None (open label)
- Number of arms
- 2
- Model description
- Two arms multicenter randomized controlled trial designed according to the intention-to-treat model. The assignement to one of the two arms (NCPAP or HHHFNC) is by block randomization. The randomization program is designed to obtain, in each research unit, a balance between the two arms according to gestation age (GA <28 weeks and GA ≥ 28 weeks).
| Arm | Type | Receives |
|---|---|---|
| HHHFNC | Active comparator | Device: HHHFNCHeated Humidified High Flow Nasal Cannulae |
| NCPAP | Active comparator | Device: NCPAPNasal Continuous Positive Air Pressure |
Who may qualify
- Ages
- 25 to 29 weeks
- Sex
- All
- Healthy volunteers
- Not accepted
- Age groups
- Child
Key inclusion criteria (5 listed)
- diagnosis of RDS
- stability on HHHFNC or NCPAP since at least 48 hours (SatO2 TC 90-95%, pCO2 ≤ 60 mmHg, FiO2 < 40%, Silverman score ≤ 6, ≤ 2 apnea episodes/hour with CPAP ≤ 7 cmH2O if on NCPAP and flow ≤ 6 L/min if on HHHFNC )
- ≤ 7 days of life
- suitability to start enteral feeding (if not already started)
- parental written consent
Key exclusion criteria (3 listed)
- neurological or surgical diseases
- sepsis
- chromosomal abnormalities or major malformations
Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening; this overview does not establish that a patient qualifies. Full inclusion and exclusion criteria.
Interventions
| Intervention | Type | Arms |
|---|---|---|
| HHHFNCApplication to HHHFNC to treat respiratory distress syndrome in preterm infants previously demonstrated to be stable on a non-invasive respiratory support (HHHFNC or NCPAP). | Device | HHHFNC |
| NCPAPApplication to NCPAP to treat respiratory distress syndrome in preterm infants previously demonstrated to be stable on a non-invasive respiratory support (HHHFNC or NCPAP). | Device | NCPAP |
Primary outcome
Full Enteral Feeding (FEF) time
Time frame: From date of randomization until the date of hospital discharge or date of death, whichever came first, assessed up to 6 months
Time to reach Full Enteral Feeding, defined as an enteral intake of 150 mL/kg/die (n. of days)
14 secondary outcomes
Half Enteral Feeding (HEF) time
Time frame: From date of randomization until the date of hospital discharge or date of death, whichever came first, assessed up to 6 months
Enteral feeding interruptions
Time frame: From date of randomization until the date of hospital discharge or date of death, whichever came first, assessed up to 6 months
Not given feeds
Time frame: From date of randomization until the date of hospital discharge or date of death, whichever came first, assessed up to 6 months
Pathologic gastric residuals
Time frame: From date of randomization until the date of hospital discharge or date of death, whichever came first, assessed up to 6 months
Vomits and/or regurgitations
Time frame: From date of randomization until the date of hospital discharge or date of death, whichever came first, assessed up to 6 months
Abdominal distension
Time frame: From date of randomization until the date of hospital discharge or date of death, whichever came first, assessed up to 6 months
Beginning of oral feeding
Time frame: From date of randomization until the date of hospital discharge or date of death, whichever came first, assessed up to 6 months
Full oral feeding time
Time frame: From date of randomization until the date of hospital discharge or date of death, whichever came first, assessed up to 6 months
Weight growth
Time frame: From date of randomization until the date of hospital discharge or date of death, whichever came first, assessed up to 6 months
Duration of respiratory support assigned at randomization
Time frame: From date of randomization until the date of hospital discharge or date of death, whichever came first, assessed up to 6 months
Total duration of respiratory support need
Time frame: From date of randomization until the date of hospital discharge or date of death, whichever came first, assessed up to 6 months
Failure of the respiratory support assigned at randomization
Time frame: From date of randomization until the date of hospital discharge or date of death, whichever came first, assessed up to 6 months
Length of hospital stay
Time frame: From date of randomization until the date of hospital discharge or date of death, whichever came first, assessed up to 6 months
Complications
Time frame: From date of randomization until the date of hospital discharge or date of death, whichever came first, assessed up to 6 months
Results and safety
The study is completed, but results are not available in the source record. That does not mean the treatment did or did not work.
Research links
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govLast updated by the sponsor 23 Aug 2022.
- Background: PubMed 16802622Davies PL, Maxwell NC, Kotecha S. The role of inflammation and infection in the development of chronic lung disease of prematurity. Adv Exp Med Biol. 2006;582:101-10. doi: 10.1007/0-387-33026-7_9.
- Background: PubMed 28795220Lista G, Maturana A, Moya FR. Achieving and maintaining lung volume in the preterm infant: from the first breath to the NICU. Eur J Pediatr. 2017 Oct;176(10):1287-1293. doi: 10.1007/s00431-017-2984-y. Epub 2017 Aug 10.
- Background: PubMed 19651592Aly H. Ventilation without tracheal intubation. Pediatrics. 2009 Aug;124(2):786-9. doi: 10.1542/peds.2009-0256. Epub 2009 Jul 27. No abstract available.
- Background: PubMed 22301528Ramanathan R, Sekar KC, Rasmussen M, Bhatia J, Soll RF. Nasal intermittent positive pressure ventilation after surfactant treatment for respiratory distress syndrome in preterm infants <30 weeks' gestation: a randomized, controlled trial. J Perinatol. 2012 May;32(5):336-43. doi: 10.1038/jp.2012.1. Epub 2012 Feb 2.
- Background: PubMed 24144716Fischer HS, Buhrer C. Avoiding endotracheal ventilation to prevent bronchopulmonary dysplasia: a meta-analysis. Pediatrics. 2013 Nov;132(5):e1351-60. doi: 10.1542/peds.2013-1880. Epub 2013 Oct 21.
- Background: PubMed 24136633Schmolzer GM, Kumar M, Pichler G, Aziz K, O'Reilly M, Cheung PY. Non-invasive versus invasive respiratory support in preterm infants at birth: systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ. 2013 Oct 17;347:f5980. doi: 10.1136/bmj.f5980.
- Background: PubMed 26899543Wilkinson D, Andersen C, O'Donnell CP, De Paoli AG, Manley BJ. High flow nasal cannula for respiratory support in preterm infants. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2016 Feb 22;2(2):CD006405. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD006405.pub3.
- Background: PubMed 26283781Kotecha SJ, Adappa R, Gupta N, Watkins WJ, Kotecha S, Chakraborty M. Safety and Efficacy of High-Flow Nasal Cannula Therapy in Preterm Infants: A Meta-analysis. Pediatrics. 2015 Sep;136(3):542-53. doi: 10.1542/peds.2015-0738. Epub 2015 Aug 17.
- Background: PubMed 28333157Yoder BA, Manley B, Collins C, Ives K, Kugelman A, Lavizzari A, McQueen M. Consensus approach to nasal high-flow therapy in neonates. J Perinatol. 2017 Jul;37(7):809-813. doi: 10.1038/jp.2017.24. Epub 2017 Mar 23.
- Background: PubMed 28718356Salvo V, Lista G, Lupo E, Ricotti A, Zimmermann LJI, Gavilanes AWD, Gitto E, Colivicchi M, Ferrau V, Gazzolo D. Comparison of three non-invasive ventilation strategies (NSIPPV/BiPAP/NCPAP) for RDS in VLBW infants. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2018 Nov;31(21):2832-2838. doi: 10.1080/14767058.2017.1357693. Epub 2017 Aug 1.
- Background: PubMed 12187288Mihatsch WA, Pohlandt F, Franz AR, Flock F. Early feeding advancement in very low-birth-weight infants with intrauterine growth retardation and increased umbilical artery resistance. J Pediatr Gastroenterol Nutr. 2002 Aug;35(2):144-8. doi: 10.1097/00005176-200208000-00008.
- Background: PubMed 25633400Parker L, Torrazza RM, Li Y, Talaga E, Shuster J, Neu J. Aspiration and evaluation of gastric residuals in the neonatal intensive care unit: state of the science. J Perinat Neonatal Nurs. 2015 Jan-Mar;29(1):51-9; quiz E2. doi: 10.1097/JPN.0000000000000080.
Related trials for Very Low Birth Weight Infant
Recruiting
Effect of Developmental Care on Very Low Birth Weight Infants
Intervention
Active, not recruiting
30% or 60% Oxygen at Birth to Improve Neurodevelopmental Outcomes in Very Low Birthweight Infants
Premature Infant, Respiratory Distress Syndrome in Premature Infant
RecruitingPhase 1
Gut Permeability and Microbiome in Preterm Infants
Prematurity Complications
Not yet recruitingObservational study
Predictors of Postnatal Growth Failure in Preterm Infants
Premature Birth, Growth Failure
Recruiting
Donor Breast Milk 2
Iron Deficiency Anemia
Referral and contact
AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals. Contact the study team or a site listed below; they decide who can take part. This study is not recruiting at the moment.
Francesco Cresi, MD, PhD study director
Città della Salute e della Scienza, S.C. Neonatologia U., University of Turin
13 sites in 1 country: see every site and its status.
Questions about this trial
What is this clinical trial studying?
A study testing HHHFNC and NCPAP in people with Very Low Birth Weight Infant and Respiratory Distress Syndrome in Premature Infant, run by University of Turin, Italy at 13 sites in Italy.
The full registered description is in the About this study section and the official record.
Who may be eligible to take part?
The sponsor lists 5 inclusion and 3 exclusion criteria. Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening, so read the full criteria and contact a listed site.
Is this clinical trial currently recruiting?
The record says: finished, as of the sponsor's last update on 23 Aug 2022. Status can change between updates, so confirm with the study contact before making plans.
Where is the study taking place?
The record lists 13 sites in Italy. Whether a site is taking part right now should be confirmed with that site. See every site.
What are the possible benefits and risks?
They depend on the study and the treatment, and no study can promise a benefit. The study team explains the known risks during informed consent, before anyone joins; the record itself does not list them.
Are results available for this study?
The study is completed, but results are not available in the source record. That does not mean the treatment did or did not work.
How can a doctor refer a patient or contact the research team?
The record lists no contact. The official record names the sponsor, who can be asked directly. AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals.
What does the primary outcome measure?
Full Enteral Feeding (FEF) time (time frame: From date of randomization until the date of hospital discharge or date of death, whichever came first, assessed up to 6 months). It is what the study was designed to measure, not a finding.
Where can I read the original study information?
On the ClinicalTrials.gov record for NCT03548324, which also lists 16 linked publications.
Does a listing mean the treatment is approved or proven to work?
No. A listing means the study is registered. It does not show that the treatment is safe, works, or is approved by a regulator.
How often is this information updated?
AzTrials copies changed records from ClinicalTrials.gov every night and reloads the whole registry every week. The sponsor last updated this record on 23 Aug 2022.