P-01 The outcomes of neonates placed on the Conventional CPAP Machine vs the Makeshift CPAP Apparatus in Neonatal Intensive Care Unit at Georgetown Public Hospital during December 2020–August 2021

Design and Methods: An Observational Comparison Study was done. The sample population was neonates born at GPHC with respiratory compromise who required CPAP support, admitted to the NICU and placed on either a Makeshift CPAP Apparatus or a Conventional CPAP Machine. Neonatal charts were reviewed. Data were analysed with SPSS.

Results: In the study eighty-three (83) neonates were placed on CPAP. They were divided thus – twenty five (25), on the makeshift CPAP (Group 1) compared with fifty-eight (58), placed on the conventional CPAP (Group 2). In Group 1, 72% had APGAR scores of 7–10, 88% had moderate Silverman’s scores, 4% required surfactant and 28% required Aminophylline. In Group 2, 77% had APGAR scores of 7–10, 65% had moderate Silverman’s scores, 3% required surfactant and 22% required Aminophylline. Indications for CPAP were RDS-52, TTN-32, MAS-26, Congenital Pneumonia-37 and Birth Asphyxia-19. There was no difference in time on CPAP support (6.3 and 5.8 days, p = 0.0504). There was no significant difference in the length of hospital stay (13 and 10.5 days, p = 0.077). No neonates were stepped up to Mechanical Ventilation. No deaths were recorded.

Conclusion: The Makeshift CPAP Apparatus is as effective as the Conventional CPAP Machine in terms of resolution of respiratory distress, decrease in mechanical ventilatory support requirement and timely discharge from the hospital. A longer study period with a much larger sample population is needed to confirm these findings. However, a preliminary