Study of Clinical Profile and Outcome of Neonates on Bubble Continuous Positive Airway Pressure Support vs Heated Humidified High Flow Nasal Cannula Support for Respiratory Distress in a Tertiary Care Hospital

Background: A major clinical problem, neonatal respiratory distress requires immediate action to enhance results. Neonates experiencing respiratory distress are frequently managed with non-invasive respiratory assistance, that includes Continuous Positive Airway Pressure (CPAP) and Heated Humidified High Flow Nasal Cannula (HHHFNC), especially in preterm neonates. CPAP is widely used to maintain airway pressure and prevent atelectasis, while HHHFNC delivers high-flow oxygen therapy with humidification, aiming to reduce the work of breathing. However, there is ongoing debate about relative effectiveness of these interventions. Comparing CPAP and HHHFNC in neonates up to 28 days old requiring non-invasive respiratory support (NIRS) is objective of current research for assessing effects on failure rates, survival, mortality, and duration of respiratory support. Aim: This study aims to study the clinical Profile and outcome of Neonates on Bubble Continuous Positive Airway Pressure Support Vs Heated Humidified High Flow Nasal Cannula Support for Respiratory Distress. Discussion: Comparing CPAP and HHHFNC in neonates up to 28 days old requiring NIRS is objective of current research to assess effects on failure rates, survival, mortality, and duration of respiratory support. Conclusion: In conclusion, current research results underscore distinct advantages and limitations of CPAP and HHHFNC in neonatal care. CPAP demonstrates efficiency and consistency, particularly for preterm and LBW neonates requiring intensive respiratory support. Conversely, HHHFNC offers suitability for term neonates, although with greater variability in clinical outcomes.