Background Preterm infants spend only 50% of time within the target oxygen saturation (SpO2) during manual FiO2 control (M-FiO2). Automated FiO2 control (A-FiO2) improves SpO2 targeting but it is uncertain if this applies to different SpO2 target ranges and during non-invasive support (NIVS) and mechanical ventilation (MV).
Objective To compare the efficacy of A-FiO2 vs M-FiO2 in keeping two different SpO2 targets during NIVS or MV.
Design/methods Preterm infants on FiO2 >0.21 receiving NIVS or MV were randomised to SpO2 targets 89–93% or 91–95% and underwent M-FiO2 and A-FiO2 for 24 h each, in random sequence.
Results 80 infants (GA:26 w, age:18 d) were included (NIVS = 48, MV = 32). Time within target increased and below target decreased during A-FiO2 compared with M-FiO2, especially in the lower target range. There was a reduction in time and hypoxemia episodes with SpO2 < 80% during A-FiO2. Outcomes did not differ between NIVS or MV.
Conclusions Automated FiO2 control improved SpO2 targeting across different SpO2 ranges and reduced hypoxemia with less workload during both NIVS and MV.
Statistics from Altmetric.com
If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.