<p><strong>BACKGROUND: </strong>Preterm infants are at risk of lung atelectasis due to various anatomical and physiological immaturities, placing them at high risk of respiratory failure and associated harms. Nasal continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) is a positive pressure applied to the airways via the nares. It helps prevent atelectasis and supports adequate gas exchange in spontaneously breathing infants. Nasal CPAP is used in the care of preterm infants around the world. Despite its common use, the appropriate pressure levels to apply during nasal CPAP use remain uncertain.</p>

<p><strong>OBJECTIVES: </strong>To assess the effects of 'low' (≤ 5 cm HO) versus 'moderate-high' (&gt; 5 cm HO) initial nasal CPAP pressure levels in preterm&nbsp;infants receiving CPAP either: 1) for initial respiratory support after birth and neonatal resuscitation or 2) following mechanical ventilation and endotracheal extubation.</p>

<p><strong>SEARCH METHODS: </strong>We ran a comprehensive search on 6 November 2020 in the following databases: CENTRAL via CRS Web and MEDLINE via Ovid. We also searched clinical trials databases and the reference lists of retrieved articles for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-randomized trials.</p>

<p><strong>SELECTION CRITERIA: </strong>We included RCTs, quasi-RCTs, cluster-RCTs and cross-over RCTs randomizing preterm infants of gestational age &lt; 37 weeks or birth weight &lt; 2500 grams within the first 28 days of life to different nasal CPAP levels.</p>

<p><strong>DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: </strong>We used the standard methods of Cochrane Neonatal to collect and analyze data. We used the GRADE approach to assess the certainty of the evidence for the prespecified primary outcomes.</p>

<p><strong>MAIN RESULTS: </strong>Eleven trials met inclusion criteria of the review. Four trials were parallel-group RCTs reporting our prespecified primary or secondary outcomes. Two trials randomized 316 infants to low versus moderate-high nasal CPAP for initial respiratory support, and two trials randomized 117 infants to low versus moderate-high nasal CPAP following endotracheal extubation. The remaining seven studies were cross-over trials reporting short-term physiological outcomes. The most common potential sources of bias were absent or unclear blinding of personnel and assessors and uncertain selective reporting. Nasal CPAP for initial respiratory support after birth and neonatal resuscitation None of the six primary outcomes prespecified for inclusion in the summary of findings was eligible for meta-analysis. No trials reported on moderate-severe neurodevelopmental impairment at 18 to 26 months. The remaining five outcomes were reported in a single trial. On the basis of this trial, we are uncertain whether low or moderate-high nasal CPAP levels improve the outcomes of: death or bronchopulmonary dysplasia (BPD) at 36 weeks' postmenstrual age (PMA) (risk ratio (RR) 1.02, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.56 to 1.85; 1 trial, 271 participants); mortality by hospital discharge (RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.51 to 2.12; 1 trial, 271 participants); BPD at 28 days of age (RR 1.10, 95% CI 0.56 to 2.17; 1 trial, 271 participants); BPD at 36 weeks' PMA (RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.25 to 2.57; 1 trial, 271 participants), and treatment failure or need for mechanical ventilation (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.63 to 1.57; 1 trial, 271 participants). We assessed the certainty of the evidence as very low for all five outcomes due to risk of bias, a lack of consistency across multiple studies, and imprecise effect estimates. Nasal CPAP following mechanical ventilation and endotracheal extubation One of the six primary outcomes prespecified for inclusion in the summary of findings was eligible for meta-analysis. On the basis of these data, we are uncertain whether low or moderate-high nasal CPAP levels improve the outcome of treatment failure or need for mechanical ventilation (RR 1.52, 95% CI 0.92 to 2.50; 2 trials, 117 participants; I = 17%; risk difference 0.15, 95% CI -0.02 to 0.32; number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome 7, 95% CI -50 to 3). We assessed the certainty of the evidence as very low due to risk of bias, inconsistency across the studies, and imprecise effect estimates. No trials reported on moderate-severe neurodevelopmental impairment at 18 to 26 months or BPD at 28 days of age. The remaining three outcomes were reported in a single trial. On the basis of this trial, we are uncertain whether low or moderate-high nasal CPAP levels improve the outcomes of: death or BPD at 36 weeks' PMA (RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.51 to 1.49; 1 trial, 93 participants); mortality by hospital discharge (RR 2.94, 95% CI 0.12 to 70.30; 1 trial, 93 participants), and BPD at 36 weeks' PMA (RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.51 to 1.49; 1 trial, 93 participants). We assessed the certainty of the evidence as very low for all three outcomes due to risk of bias, a lack of consistency across multiple studies, and imprecise effect estimates.&nbsp; AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There are insufficient data from randomized trials to guide nasal CPAP level selection in preterm infants, whether provided as initial respiratory support or following extubation from invasive mechanical ventilation. We are uncertain as to whether low or moderate-high nasal CPAP levels improve morbidity and mortality in preterm infants. Well-designed trials evaluating this important aspect of a commonly used neonatal therapy are needed.</p>

<p><strong>INTRODUCTION: </strong>Pulse oximetry monitoring is prescribed to children receiving home oxygen for chronic medical conditions associated with hypoxemia. Although home pediatric pulse oximetry is supported by national organizations, there are a lack of guidelines outlining indications and prescribing parameters.</p>

<p><strong>METHODS: </strong>A mixed-methods analysis of pediatric home pulse oximetry orders prescribed through the institutional home health care provider at a large US children's hospital 6/2018-7/2019 were retrospectively reviewed to determine prescribed alarm parameter limits and recommended interventions. Semi-structured qualitative interviews with pediatric providers managing patients receiving home oxygen and pulse oximetry were conducted to identify opportunities to improve home pulse oximetry prescribing practices. Interviews were analyzed using a modified content analysis approach to identify recurring themes.</p>

<p><strong>RESULTS: </strong>368 children received home pulse oximetry orders. Orders were most frequently prescribed on non-cardiac medical floors (32%). Attending physicians were the most frequent ordering providers (52%). Frequency of use was prescribed in 96% of orders, however just 70% were provided with specific instructions for interventions when alarms occurred. Provider role and clinical setting were significantly associated with the presence of a care plan. Provider interviews identified opportunities for improvement with the device, management of alarm parameter limits, and access to home monitor data.</p>

<p><strong>DISCUSSION: </strong>This study demonstrated significant variability in home pulse oximetry prescribing practices. Provider interviews highlighted the importance of the provider-patient relationship and areas for improvement. There is an opportunity to create standardized guidelines that optimize the use of home monitoring devices for patients, families, and pulmonary providers. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.</p>

<p><strong>BACKGROUND: </strong>Conventional mechanical ventilation (CMV) is a common therapy for neonatal respiratory failure. While CMV facilitates gas exchange, it may simultaneously injure the lungs. Positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) has received less attention than other ventilation parameters when considering this benefit-risk balance. While an appropriate PEEP level may result in clinical benefits, both inappropriately low or high levels may cause harm. An appropriate PEEP level may also be best achieved by an individualized approach.</p>

<p><strong>OBJECTIVES: </strong>1. To compare the effects of PEEP levels in preterm infants requiring CMV for respiratory distress syndrome (RDS). We compare both: zero end-expiratory pressure (ZEEP) (0 cm HO) versus any PEEP and low (&lt; 5 cm HO) vs high (≥ 5 cm HO) PEEP.2. To compare the effects of PEEP levels in preterm infants requiring CMV for bronchopulmonary dysplasia (BPD). We compare both: ZEEP (0 cm HO) vs any PEEP and low (&lt; 5 cm HO) versus high (≥ 5 cm HO) PEEP.3. To compare the effects of different methods for individualizing PEEP to an optimal level in preterm newborn infants requiring CMV for RDS.</p>

<p><strong>SEARCH METHODS: </strong>We used the standard search strategy of Cochrane Neonatal to search the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE via PubMed, Embase, and CINAHL to 14 February 2018. We also searched clinical trials databases, conference proceedings, and the reference lists of retrieved articles for randomized controlled trials and quasi-randomized trials.</p>

<p><strong>SELECTION CRITERIA: </strong>We included all randomized or quasi-randomized controlled trials studying preterm infants born at less than 37 weeks' gestational age, requiring CMV and undergoing randomization to either different PEEP levels (RDS or BPD); or, two or more alternative methods for individualizing PEEP levels (RDS only). We included cross-over trials but limited outcomes to those from the first cross-over period.</p>

<p><strong>DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: </strong>We performed data collection and analysis according to the recommendations of the Cochrane Neonatal Review Group. We used the GRADE approach to assess the quality of evidence for prespecified key clinically relevant outcomes.</p>

<p><strong>MAIN RESULTS: </strong>Four trials met the inclusion criteria. Two cross-over trials with 28 participants compared different PEEP levels in infants with RDS. Meta-analysis was limited to short-term measures of pulmonary gas exchange and showed no differences between low and high PEEP.We identified no trials comparing PEEP levels in infants with BPD.Two trials enrolling 44 participants compared different methods for individualizing PEEP in infants with RDS. Both trials compared an oxygenation-guided lung-recruitment maneuver (LRM) with gradual PEEP level titrations for individualizing PEEP to routine care (control). Meta-analysis showed no difference between LRM and control on mortality by hospital discharge (risk ratio (RR) 1.00, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.17 to 5.77); there was no statistically significant difference on BPD, with an effect estimate favoring LRM (RR 0.25, 95% CI 0.03 to 2.07); and a statistically significant difference favoring LRM for the outcome of duration of ventilatory support (mean difference -1.06 days, 95% CI -1.85 to -0.26; moderate heterogeneity, I = 67%). Short-term oxygenation measures also favored LRM. We graded the quality of the evidence as low for all key outcomes due to risk of bias and imprecision of the effect estimates.</p>

<p><strong>AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: </strong>There continues to be insufficient evidence to guide PEEP level selection for preterm infants on CMV for RDS or BPD. Low-quality data suggests that selecting PEEP levels through the application of an oxygenation-guided LRM may result in clinical benefit. Well-conducted randomized trials, particularly to further evaluate the potential benefits of oxygenation-guided LRMs, are needed.</p>