Advertisement

The Indian Journal of Pediatrics

, Volume 70, Issue 7, pp 537–540 | Cite as

Neonatal mechanical ventilation

  • P. K. Riyas
  • K. M. Vijayakumar
  • M. L. Kulkarni
Original Article

Abstract

Objective : This study was undertaken to analyze indications, complications, outcome and the factors influencing neonatal mechanical ventilation.Methods : Prospective observational study conducted on 102 consecutive newborns, who required mechanical ventilation in a medical college tertiary neonatal care setting.Results : The commonest indication was birth asphyxia (37.3%), followed by hyaline membrane disease (HMD) (31.4%), meconium aspiration syndrome (MAS) (21.2%), septicemia (14.7%) and apnea of prematurity (5.9%). The overall survival rate in our study was 51 %. Babies weighing less than 1.5 kg and less than 32 weeks of gestation had survival rates of 30% and 25% respectively. The best outcome among various indications was observed in babies with MAS (63.6%) followed by pneumonia (62.5%) and HMD (53.1%). Babies with birth asphyxia and septicemia had a low survival rate of only 42% and 40% respectively. The overall complication rate in the study was 58.8%. Common complications encountered were septicemia (42%), tube block (36%) and air leak (15%).Conclusion : About half (51%) of newborns requiring mechanical ventilations for various indications survived and more than half (58.8%) developed complications. The study also reconfirms that survival rate increases with birth weight and gestational age irrespective of indication.

Key words

Neonatal ventilation Indications Survival Complications 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Krishnan L, Paul PF, Nirupa AD, Nalini B. Assisted ventilation in neonates-A Manipal experience.Indian J Pediatr 1994; 61: 379–386.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Nangia S, Arwind S, Datta AK, Vani G, Meeta S, Anju Set al. Neonatal mechanical ventilation-experience at a level-II care center.Indian J Pediatr 1998; 65: 291–296.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Singh M, Deorari AK, Paul VK, Mittel M, Shankar S, Munshi Uet al. Three years experience with neonatal ventilation from a teritiary care hospital in Delhi.Indian Pediatr 1993; 30: 783–789.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Mathur NC, Sailesh K, Prasanna AL, Sahu UK, Kapoor R, Roy Set al. Intermittent postive pressure ventilation in a neonatal intensive care unit: Hyderabad experience.Indian Pediatr 1998; 35: 349–352.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Maiyya PP, Vishwanath D, Hegde S, Srinivas TP, Prasad S, Shantala Cet al. Mechanical ventilation of newborn experience from a level-II NICU.Indian Pediatr 1995; 32: 1267–1278.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Singh M, Deorari AK, Rajiv A, Paul VK. Assisted ventilation for HMD.Indian Pediatr 1995; 32: 1267–1274.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    William JR, Sunshine P, Smith PC. Mechanical Ventilation of newborn infants five years experience.Anaesthesiology 1971; 34: 132–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Lindroth M, Sunningser NW, Ahisterom H. Evaluation of mechanical ventilation in newborn infants.Acta Paediatr Scand 1980; 69: 143–149.PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Dr. K C Chaudhuri Foundation 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  • P. K. Riyas
    • 1
  • K. M. Vijayakumar
    • 1
  • M. L. Kulkarni
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of PediatricsJ.J.M. Medical CollegeDavangereIndia

Personalised recommendations