Comparison of RAM Cannula Nasal Continuous Positive Airway Pressure Versus Infant Flow Nasal Continuous Positive Airway Pressure (NCPAP)

NCT02032511 | Terminated

• 1 other identifier: HUM00073557
• Study Type: observational
• Target: 19
• Locations: 0 countries
• Sites: N/A

Brief Summary

This study is designed to compare the effectiveness and ease of use of two commonly used NCPAP interfaces: the RAM NC and the Infant Flow prongs and nasal mask.

Conditions

Acute Respiratory Deficiency; Prematurity; Assisted Ventilation

Outcome Measures

Primary Outcomes (1)

• Number of patients who achieve unassisted breathing

  One year

Study Arms (2)

RAM Cannula Nasal Continuous Positive Airway Pressure

Infant Flow Nasal Continuous Positive Airway Pressure (NCPAP)

Eligibility Criteria

• Age: Up to 6 Months
• Sex: all
• Healthy Volunteers: No
• Age Groups: Child (0-17)
• Sampling Method: Non-Probability Sample

Study Population

infants less than or equal to 7kg with an order for nasal continuous positive pressure

You may qualify if:

• less than or equal to 7 kg
• order for nasal continuous positive pressure

You may not qualify if:

• patients greater than 7kg
• patients that do not have informed consent

Sponsors & Collaborators

• University of Michigan: lead

MeSH Terms

Conditions

Premature Birth

Condition Hierarchy (Ancestors)

Obstetric Labor, Premature; Obstetric Labor Complications; Pregnancy Complications; Female Urogenital Diseases and Pregnancy Complications; Urogenital Diseases

Study Design

• Study Type: observational
• Observational Model: COHORT
• Time Perspective: PROSPECTIVE
• Sponsor Type: OTHER
• Responsible Party: PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR
• PI Title: RRT

Study Record Dates

• First Submitted: January 7, 2014
• First Posted: January 10, 2014
• Study Start: September 1, 2013
• Primary Completion: April 1, 2014
• Study Completion: April 1, 2014
• Last Updated: January 9, 2017

Record last verified: 2017-01