ClinicalTrials.gg
CompletedNCT07891494Updated Oct 23, 2026

Heated, Humidified High-flow Nasal (HHHFN) Cannula vs Nasal Continuous Positive Airway Pressure in Respiratory Distress in Premature Neonates

A Phase 4 interventional study of Heated Humidified High-Flow Nasal Cannula therapy and nCPAP in Neonatal Respiratory Distress Syndrome, sponsored by Pakistan Air Force (PAF) Hospital Islamabad. Completed at 1 site in Pakistan. Open to participants aged 28 Weeks to 37 Weeks. Per ClinicalTrials.gov, last updated 2026-10-23.

Sponsored by Pakistan Air Force (PAF) Hospital Islamabad · Phase 4, Interventional, and Prevention

From the registry’s dates

  • Registered 2 years 1 month after the study started (first participant enrolled Sep 2024, registered Oct 2026).
Updated Oct 23, 2026Newly registeredGo to Updates ↓
Phase
Phase 4
Study type
Interventional
Enrollment
100
Allocation
Randomized
Ages
28 Weeks to 37 Weeks
Sex
All
01

Study summary

Newborn babies who have difficulty breathing may need breathing support to help them receive enough oxygen. Two commonly used methods are heated, humidified high-flow nasal cannula (HHFNC), which delivers warmed, moist air and oxygen through small tubes in the nose, and nasal continuous positive airway pressure (nCPAP), which helps keep the lungs open by delivering air and oxygen under gentle pressure through a nasal mask or tubes.

This study will compare these two methods in newborn babies born at 28 weeks of pregnancy or later who develop breathing difficulties within the first 24 hours after birth. The study will be conducted in the neonatal intensive care unit at PAF Hospital Islamabad and will include 100 newborn babies. Participants will be randomly assigned to receive either HHFNC or nCPAP as their initial breathing support.

The main purpose is to compare how often each method fails to provide adequate breathing support within the first 72 hours, requiring a change to another form of breathing support or insertion of a breathing tube for mechanical ventilation. The study will also assess other outcomes, including nasal injury, survival until hospital discharge, need for surfactant treatment, duration of breathing support and oxygen therapy, time to achieve full feeding, intestinal complications, and length of hospital stay.

The findings may help improve understanding of the effectiveness and safety of these two breathing support methods in newborn babies with breathing difficulties.

Read the detailed description
  1. Objective:

    To compare the clinical efficacy of HFNC and NCPAP, as primary respiratory support in neonates with respiratory distress who are≥28 weeks GA in reducing the need for IMV.

  2. Operational definition

    • Efficacy:

Efficacy will be assessed on basis of treatment failure

-Treatment failure: Treatment failure defined as requiring intubation or other non-invasive respiratory support within 72 h of starting intervention.

Mechanical ventilation will be considered when

  1. Sustained increase in oxygen requirement: FiO2>0.40 to maintain SpO2 of 90%-94% for more than 2 hour
  2. Respiratory acidosis: potential of Hydrogen (pH)≤7.20 and PaCO2>60 mm Hg
  3. Frequent or severe apnea despite drug therapy or respiratory support: two or more apnea events requiring bag-mask ventilation within 24 h

    • HFNC:

HFNC will be provided by devices that deliver a blend of heated and humidified gas mixture of air and oxygen at gas flows exceeding 1 L/ min via binasal cannula.

-N-CPAP: NCPAP will be provided by devices with pressure that is measurable and controllable that transport heated and humidified gas via binasal nasal prongs or nasal masks

-Respiratory distress: It will be defined on basis of Silverman Anderson score Primary outcome Our primary outcome is treatment failure within 72hrs of starting intervention Secondary outcomes

  1. Nasal injury following either intervention
  2. Death before discharge.
  3. Surfactant treatment within 72 h after randomization.
  4. Duration of both NIV and IMV.
  5. Duration of oxygen therapy.
  6. Time to achieve full enteral nutrition.
  7. Necrotizing enterocolitis.
  8. Duration of admission. Hypothesis Alternate hypothesis There is a difference in clinical efficacy of different respiratory supports i.e nCPAP and HHHF in neonates with respiratory distress Null hypothesis There is no difference in clinical efficacy of different respiratory supports i.e NCPAP and HHHF in neonates with respiratory distress

3.Materials and methods

  • Study design Randomized controlled trial
  • Setting This trial will be conducted at PAF Hospital Islamabad NICU which is a tertiary hospital equipped with ventilators capable of providing HHFN and NCPAP.
  • Duration of study 6months
  • Sample size The sample size was calculated by using WHO sample size calculator with following parameters Level of significance =5% Power of test=90% Anticipated population proportions, rate of treatment failure in NCPAP group (P1) = 40% and rate of treatment failure in HHHFNC group (P2) = 11.8%.

The sample size turned out to be 50 patients in each group and a total of 100 patients will be included in the study

  • Sampling technique Consecutive non probability sampling
  • Data collection procedure Before enrolling eligible neonate in our research study informed consent will be taken from guardian. After consent they will be randomly assigned to one of the two groups: the HFNC group, CPAP group. We will assess the respiratory distress using Silverman Andersen Score before starting any respiratory intervention. Surfactant (Curosurf) will be administered to infants with FiO2>0.40 and with evidence of RD syndrome (RDS) on chest x-ray. In nCPAP group, initial PEEP would be 6cm H2O and for HHHF group, initial flow rate will be 6 L/min for all infants ,target Spo2 will be 90-94% for which FiO2 will be adjusted accordingly in both groups .Gas flow of 8L/min in HHFN and PEEP of 8cm H2O for nCPAP will be considered as maximum setting and FiO2 up to 0.40 would be our upper cut off range to ensure adequate oxygenation. Cardiac monitors will be attached continuously and will monitor R/R, Silverman score to assess distress, FiO2 requirement, apneic spells length of stay, duration of respiratory support, initiation of feed in both groups. If infant meet any of pre defined treatment failure criteria, the assigned intervention will be terminated and infant will be put on mechanical ventilation. Non-invasive ventilation failure criteria included acidosis and hypercarbia (pH \<7.20 and pCO2 >65 mmHg), apnea (≥2 episodes/h).Weaning will be started based on clinical status and set protocol i.e when flow rate for infants can be decreased down to 2 L/min in HHHFN group and in CPAP group, pressure for infants can be decreased down to 4 cmH2O.
  • Data analysis procedure Data will be analyzed using SPSS software (Version 23) .Descriptive stats will be calculated for both quantitative and qualitative variables Qualitative variables like efficacy , gender, mode of delivery, nasal injury NEC will be measured in term of frequency and percentage Quantitative variables like gestational age, weight, duration of hospital stay, TTN score, need of respiratory support in days , initiation of enteral feeding (hours), duration of respiratory support will be measured in form of mean and standard deviation .Effect modifiers like gestational age, gender, weight and mode of delivery will be controlled through stratification. Post stratification, Independent sample t-test will be used to compare quantitative variables in both groups. P value\< 0.05, will be considered as significant
02

Conditions studied

  • Neonatal Respiratory Distress Syndrome

Keywords

  • neonatal respiratory distress syndrome
  • nCPAP
  • HFNC
  • Broncho-pulmonary Dysplasia
03

In context

Respiratory Distress Syndrome, Newborn

1,179 studies on the registry are indexed under Respiratory Distress Syndrome, Newborn; 160 are open to participants now.

This study's enrollment of 100 is above the median of 60 across 714 interventional studies indexed under Respiratory Distress Syndrome, Newborn.

Browse Respiratory Distress Syndrome, Newborn studies →

Lead sponsor

Pakistan Air Force (PAF) Hospital Islamabad is the lead sponsor of 10 studies on the registry; 2 are open to participants now.

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

04

Who can participate

Ages eligible
28 Weeks to 37 Weeks
Sexes eligible
All
Accepts healthy volunteers
No

Go through the criteria one by one — yes, no or not sure — and take the list to your doctor or the study team. Kept in this browser only.

Inclusion criteria

It includes

  1. All neonates with GA ≥28weeks
  2. Birth weight≥1000g
  3. RD occurred within 24 h after birth

Exclusion criteria

Exclusion Criteria:

Infants will be excluded from this study if they meet any of the following criteria:

  1. Major congenital anomalies or chromosomal abnormalities
  2. Suspected congenital lung diseases, malformations
  3. Neuromuscular disorders
05

Study design

Phase
Phase 4
Primary purpose
Prevention
Allocation
Randomized
Intervention model
Parallel assignment
Masking
Single (Outcomes assessor)
Enrollment
100 participants (actual)

Study arms

  • Active comparator
    Heated Humidified High-Flow Nasal Cannula therapy Group

    Combination Product: Heated Humidified High-Flow Nasal Cannula therapy

  • Active comparator
    N-CPAP Group

    Combination Product: nCPAP

Interventions

  • Combination productHeated Humidified High-Flow Nasal Cannula therapy

    HFNC will be provided by devices that deliver a blend of heated and humidified gas mixture of air and oxygen at gas flows exceeding 1 L/ min via binasal cannula

  • Combination productnCPAP

    NCPAP will be provided by devices with pressure that is measurable and controllable that transport heated and humidified gas via binasal nasal prongs or nasal masks

06

What researchers measure

Primary outcomes

  1. Treatment Failure

    Efficacy will be assessed on basis of treatment failure. Treatment failure defined as requiring intubation or other non-invasive respiratory support within 72 h of starting intervention. Mechanical ventilation will be considered when 1. Sustained increase in oxygen requirement: FiO2\>0.40 to maintain SpO2 of 90%-94% for more than 2 hour 2. Respiratory acidosis: potential of Hydrogen (pH)≤7.20 and PaCO2\>60 mm Hg 3. Frequent or severe apnea despite drug therapy or respiratory support: two or more apnea events requiring bag-mask ventilation within 24 h

    Time frame: 72 hours of starting treatment

07

Study locations

1 site
  • PAF Hospital Islamabad
    Islamabad, Capital 44000, Pakistan
08

References and documents

Publications

  • Kaminski DM, Biazus GF, Silveira RC, Procianoy RS. Comparison of the effectiveness of different high-flow devices in neonatal care. J Pediatr (Rio J). 2024 Mar-Apr;100(2):212-217. doi: 10.1016/j.jped.2023.10.006. Epub 2023 Nov 27. PubMed 38036038 ↗
  • Yengkhom R, Suryawanshi P, Gupta B, Deshpande S. Heated Humidified High-Flow Nasal Cannula vs. Nasal Continuous Positive Airway Pressure for Post-extubation Respiratory Support in Preterm Infants: A Randomized Controlled Trial. J Trop Pediatr. 2021 Jan 29;67(1):fmaa082. doi: 10.1093/tropej/fmaa082. PubMed 33174590 ↗
  • Ho JJ, Zakarija-Grkovic I, Lok JW, Lim E, Subramaniam P, Leong JJ. Continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) for apnoea of prematurity. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2023 Jul 18;7(7):CD013660. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD013660.pub2. PubMed 37481707 ↗
  • Sweet DG, Carnielli VP, Greisen G, Hallman M, Klebermass-Schrehof K, Ozek E, Te Pas A, Plavka R, Roehr CC, Saugstad OD, Simeoni U, Speer CP, Vento M, Visser GHA, Halliday HL. European Consensus Guidelines on the Management of Respiratory Distress Syndrome: 2022 Update. Neonatology. 2023;120(1):3-23. doi: 10.1159/000528914. Epub 2023 Feb 15. PubMed 36863329 ↗
  • Lee WY, Choi EK, Shin J, Lee EH, Choi BM, Hong YS. Risk factors for treatment failure of heated humidified high-flow nasal cannula as an initial respiratory support in newborn infants with respiratory distress. Pediatr Neonatol. 2020 Apr;61(2):174-179. doi: 10.1016/j.pedneo.2019.09.004. Epub 2019 Sep 23. PubMed 31628028 ↗
  • Oktem A, Yigit S, Celik HT, Yurdakok M. Comparison of four different non-invasive respiratory support techniques as primary respiratory support in preterm infants. Turk J Pediatr. 2021;63(1):23-30. doi: 10.24953/turkjped.2021.01.003. PubMed 33686823 ↗
  • Pattnaik P, Adebisi K, Lee B. Neonatal Respiratory Distress Syndrome. 2026 Feb 17. In: StatPearls [Internet]. Treasure Island (FL): StatPearls Publishing; 2026 Jan-. Available from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK560779/ PubMed 32809614 ↗
  • Liu J, Fu W, Qin SJ. Lung ultrasound to guide the administration of exogenous pulmonary surfactant in respiratory distress syndrome of newborn infants: A retrospective investigation study. Front Pediatr. 2022 Oct 12;10:952315. doi: 10.3389/fped.2022.952315. eCollection 2022. PubMed 36340730 ↗

Individual participant data

Plan to share: No — Because of the concern of Confidentiality. Information will be provided to researcher in case any further research is going on or the study bredibility regarding ethics is concerned.

09

Timeline

1 registry update since Sep 25, 2026
ElapsedEstimatedEstimated, not yet reached

Ran from Sep 2024 to primary completion in Sep 2025, 12 months.

How these figures are worked out, and which studies are left out of them.

Registered
Oct 17, 2026
First posted
Oct 23, 2026
StartActual
Sep 4, 2024
Primary completionActual
Sep 20, 2025
CompletionActual
Sep 20, 2025
Last update
Oct 23, 2026
What these dates mean
Start.
When the first participant enrolled; while estimated, when the study expects to open to recruitment.
Primary completion.
When the last participant was examined or treated to collect data for the study's main question, its primary outcome. A study that stopped early gives the date its data collection stopped.
Completion.
When the last participant's last visit took place, for every outcome, secondary ones and side effects included: the end of the study. Often later than primary completion, sometimes the same day.
Actual and Est.
Actual means the registry says the date has happened. Est. (estimated) is a date the sponsor plans or expects. It can still move, and the sponsor is expected to change it to actual once it has passed.
Registered
First appeared on the registry. No changes since
Oct 23, 2026
Show all 1 update
  1. Oct 23, 2026
    First appeared on the registry

From the registry record's own update history. This site started tracking changes on Sep 25, 2026; for anything earlier, see the record history on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗

10

Registry details

Key details

Study ID
NCT07891494
Lead sponsor
Pakistan Air Force (PAF) Hospital Islamabad
Responsible party
Muhammad Tayyab Qureshi (Dr, Pakistan Air Force (PAF) Hospital Islamabad) — Principal investigator
First posted
Oct 23, 2026
Start date
Sep 4, 2024
Primary completion
Sep 20, 2025
Completion
Sep 20, 2025
Last update
Oct 23, 2026

Oversight

Data monitoring committee
Yes
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 Oct 2026. 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