CClinicalTrials.gg
CompletedNCT04051762Updated Aug 9, 2019

A Comparative Study Between Postextubation of Preterm Infants Into High-Flow Nasal Cannulae V.S Nasal Continuous Positive Airway Pressure

An observational study in Neonatal Respiratory Distress, sponsored by Ramy Saleh Morsy. Completed at 1 site in Egypt. Open to participants aged 1 Day to 28 Days, including healthy volunteers. Per ClinicalTrials.gov, last updated 2019-08-09.

Sponsored by Ramy Saleh Morsy · Observational

Study type
Observational
Model
Cohort
Time perspective
Prospective
Enrollment
100
Ages
1 Day to 28 Days
Sex
All
01

Study summary

The investigators hypothesize that there is a growing trend of the feasibility of HFNC as an alternative to other forms of non-invasive ventilation mechanism to provide continuous distending pressure to preterm infants. However, there remains uncertainty about the efficacy and safety of HFNC in this population.

Read the detailed description

Our primary outcome is to determine whether postextubation respiratory support via heated humidified high-flow nasal cannula results in a greater proportion of infants younger than 34 weeks gestation being successfully extubated after a period of endotracheal positive pressure ventilation compared with conventional (NCPAP).

The following study will be conducted in the neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) of Gynecology and Obstetric department of Kasr El Aini hospital and neonatal intensive care unit of Military Hospital throughout a time interval of at least 6 months for a minimum of 100 preterm infants.

Infants will be eligible for the study if they born at less than 34 weeks' gestation, required endotracheal intubation and positive pressure ventilation, and considered ready for extubation by the clinical team.

The investigators will assign extubation of preterm ventilated infants (50 preterm infant) in NICU of Military Hospital into HHFNC and extubation of preterm ventilated infants (50 preterm infant) in (NICU) of Gynecology and Obstetric department of Kasr El Aini hospital into NCPAP (50 preterm infant).

02

Conditions studied

03

In context

Respiratory Distress Syndrome, Newborn

1,179 studies on the registry are indexed under Respiratory Distress Syndrome, Newborn; 161 are open to participants now.

This study's enrollment of 100 is close to the median of 100 across 388 observational studies indexed under Respiratory Distress Syndrome, Newborn.

Browse Respiratory Distress Syndrome, Newborn studies →

Lead sponsor

This is the only study on the registry with Ramy Saleh Morsy as lead sponsor.

Counted across the registry records on this site, refreshed daily.

04

Who can participate

Ages eligible
1 Day to 28 Days
Sexes eligible
All
Accepts healthy volunteers
Yes
Sampling method
Probability sample

Study population

The following study will be conducted in the neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) of Gynecology and Obstetric department of Kasr El Aini hospital and neonatal intensive care unit of Military Hospital throughout a time interval of at least 6 months for a minimum of 100 preterm infants.

Infants will be eligible for the study if they born at less than 34 weeks' gestation, required endotracheal intubation and positive pressure ventilation, and considered ready for extubation by the clinical team.

Inclusion criteria

•Infants born at a gestational age of less than 34 weeks, receiving mechanical ventilation through an endotracheal tube.

Exclusion criteria

Exclusion Criteria:

  • Full term neonates or large for gestational age.
  • Preterm neonates not supported primarily by invasive ventilation.
  • Infants with suspected upper airway obstruction, congenital airway malformations or major cardiopulmonary malformations.
05

Study design

Observational model
Cohort
Time perspective
Prospective
Enrollment
100 participants (actual)
Patient registry
No

Groups and cohorts

  • Preterm neonates on HFNC

    neonates extubated to HFNC (High flow nasal cannula)

    Device: High flow nasal cannula vs. Nasal continuous positive airway pressure

  • Preterm neonates on NCPAP

    neonates extubated to NCPAP ( nasal continuous positive airway pressure)

    Device: High flow nasal cannula vs. Nasal continuous positive airway pressure

Interventions

  • DeviceHigh flow nasal cannula vs. Nasal continuous positive airway pressure

    High flow nasal cannula

06

What researchers measure

Primary outcomes

  1. postextubation respiratory support

    compare successful extubation of preterm (less than 34 weeks) into high flow nasal cannula versus continues positive airway pressure.

    Time frame: through study completion, an average of 1 year

Secondary outcomes

  1. postextubation respiratory support follow up

    Secondary outcomes include the following: 1. Need for delayed reintubation (beyond 7 days) 2. Incidence of bronchopulmonary dysplasia. 3. Total number of days of hospital stay.

    Time frame: through study completion, an average of 1 year

07

Study locations

1 site
  • Magda Mahmoud Badawy
    Cairo, Egypt
08

References and documents

Individual participant data

Plan to share: No

No publications or documents are linked to this record.

09

Updates

Tracking since Sep 25, 2026
No changes since tracking began. The registry record was last updated on Aug 9, 2019, before this site started recording changes on Sep 25, 2026. Its history is on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗
10

Registry details

Key details

Study ID
NCT04051762
Lead sponsor
Ramy Saleh Morsy
Responsible party
Ramy Saleh Morsy (Assistatnt Lecturer in AFCM, Cairo University) — Sponsor-investigator
First posted
Aug 9, 2019
Start date
Jun 1, 2017
Primary completion
May 30, 2018
Completion
Jul 30, 2018
Last update
Aug 9, 2019

Oversight

Data monitoring committee
No
FDA-regulated drug
No
FDA-regulated device
No
View the source record on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗

Not currently enrolling

This study is completed, as verified in Aug 2019. You cannot join it, but the record below documents what was studied.

Follow this study

Get an email when the registry record changes — status, dates, results — or when someone posts here.

Sign in to follow

Discussion

Questions and observations about this study, from anyone following it. Not medical advice, and not a channel to the study team — their contact details are on the registry record.

Sign in to join the discussion. Reading takes no account; posting does. You choose a display name, and a pseudonym is the default.

Nothing here yet. If you are running this trial, taking part in it, or weighing whether to, this is the place to say so.

Start the discussion