Skip to main content

Triggering modalities to synchronise non-invasive respiratory support in preterm infants: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Journal
BMJ paediatrics open (Q1)
Published
8 September 2026
Study design
Systematic review of cohort studies
Evidence level
Level 2, Moderate (CEBM 2a)
Authors
Fabio A Blom, Ruud W van Leuteren, Frans H de Jongh, Nerissa P Denswil, Ilaria Girimonte, Raffaele Dellaca, et al.
PMID
42716543
DOI
10.1136/bmjpo-2026-005014

Why clinicians should know about it

  • Picked for Neonatology (top studies of the week, 13 September 2026): sNIPPV reduces extubation failure vs nCPAP

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Increasing evidence suggests that synchronised nasal intermittent positive pressure ventilation (sNIPPV) may be the optimal mode of non-invasive respiratory support. However, no comprehensive review of sNIPPV modes is available. This review aims to describe different synchronisation methods for sNIPPV and compare their effectiveness in clinical, physiological and technical outcomes with other modes of non-invasive respiratory support. METHODS: This review identified all clinical studies in preterm infants that compared sNIPPV to other non-invasive respiratory support modes or compared different trigger modalities between 1990 and 2026. A search was carried out in MEDLINE, Embase and the Cochrane Library. Main outcomes were categorised as clinical (eg, extubation failure (EF)), physiological (eg, breathing effort) and technical (eg, synchronisation rate). RESULTS: 49 studies (2864 infants) were included, with a low to moderate risk of bias. Meta-analysis showed a reduction in EF (risk ratio=0.38; 95% CI 0.17 to 0.85; p=0.03) in favour of sNIPPV compared with nasal continuous positive airway pressure (nCPAP). Physiological outcomes were significantly improved during sNIPPV compared with nCPAP and nasal intermittent positive pressure ventilation (NIPPV), especially breathing effort. When reviewing technical outcomes, non-invasive neurally adjusted ventilatory assist showed lower patient-ventilator asynchrony (PVA) (index ranging from 7% to 50%), a higher synchronisation rate (80%-99%) and a shorter trigger delay (35 ms) compared with other sNIPPV modes. CONCLUSIONS: This review shows that synchronising NIPPV results in consistent physiological (reduced patient effort) and technical benefits (reduced PVA). However, evidence on positive effects on (long-term) major clinical outcomes remains limited and requires further studies. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD420251022479.

Abstract as published, via PubMed.

View on PubMedFull text at the publisherOpen in the app

For healthcare professionals. The summary is generated by AI from the published abstract, and the evidence level is assigned automatically from the study design on the Oxford CEBM hierarchy. Neither is medical advice. Read the full paper before changing practice.