Nasal versus oral intubation for mechanical ventilation of newborn infants.
The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2000-01-01 · Systematic review
Abstract
BACKGROUND: This section is under preparation and will be included in the next issue. OBJECTIVES: The purpose of the review was to compare the complications associated with intubation by the nasal route with those associated with intubation by the oral route for mechanical ventilation in newborn infants. SEARCH STRATEGY: The standard search strategy of the Neonatal Review Group as outlined in the Cochrane Library was used. This included searches of the Oxford Database of Perinatal Trials, Cochrane Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE and CINAHL. A call was placed on the list servers, NICU-NET and Neonatal Talk for unpublished trials, conference presentations and current trials. SELECTION CRITERIA: All trials using random or quasi-random allocation of patients to either the nasal or oral route of intubation were included. Study quality and eligibility were assessed independently by each author. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: The standard method of the Cochrane Collaboration and the Neonatal Review Group was used to assess the methodological quality of the included studies. The methodological quality of each study was reviewed by the second author blinded to study authors and institutions. Each reviewer extracted data separately before comparison and resolution of differences. The standard method of the Neonatal Review Group was used to measure the effect of the different routes of intubation, using Relative Risk (RR) and 95% Confidence Intervals (CI). MAIN RESULTS: Only two eligible randomized trials were found. Data from these two trials failed to show significant differences between the oral and nasal route of intubation for mechanically ventilated neonates. The rate of failure to intubate using the nasal route was higher in one study. One study found post extubation atelectasis occurred more frequently in nasally intubated infants who weighed less than 1500 grams. The rates of malposition of the tube at the initial intubation, accidental extubation, tube blockage, re-intubation after extubation, septicaemia, clinical infection and local trauma (nasal erosion or palatal groove) were not significantly different for the two groups. REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS: Post extubation atelectasis may be more frequent after nasal intubation, particularly in very low birth weight infants. One route of intubation does not seem to be preferable to the other. There is a need for further randomized controlled trials containing larger numbers of infants.
Abstract © the authors or publisher, via PubMed. Reuse and removal
Tags
Endotracheal intubation · Mechanical ventilation · Neonates
Related articles
- Tracheal intubation and ventilation of the newborn infant. ARC and NZRC Guideline 2010. (Emerg Med Australas, 2011)
- Evidence-based clinical guidelines on analgesia and sedation in newborn infants undergoing assisted ventilation and endotracheal intubation. (Acta Paediatr, 2019)
- Comparison of video laryngoscopy and direct laryngoscopy for urgent intubation in newborn infants: A meta-analysis. (Paediatr Respir Rev, 2025)
- Orotracheal intubation in infants performed with a stylet versus without a stylet. (Cochrane Database Syst Rev, 2017)
- New Formula for Nasal Endotracheal Intubation in Extremely Low-Birth Weight Infants in the Emergency Transport Setting: The "Genoa Formula". (Air Med J, 2021)
- Randomised trial of estimating oral endotracheal tube insertion depth in newborns using suprasternal palpation of the tip or weight. (Arch Dis Child Fetal Neonatal Ed, 2020)