4.7 Review

Inhaled Nitric Oxide in Preterm Infants: An Individual-Patient Data Meta-analysis of Randomized Trials

Journal

PEDIATRICS
Volume 128, Issue 4, Pages 729-739

Publisher

AMER ACAD PEDIATRICS
DOI: 10.1542/peds.2010-2725

Keywords

inhaled nitric oxide; chronic lung disease; respiratory disease; preterm infants; individual-patient data meta-analysis

Categories

Funding

  1. University of California, San Diego
  2. NIH/NCRR Colorado [UL1 RR025780]
  3. NHLBI [U01HL064857]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

BACKGROUND: Inhaled nitric oxide (iNO) is an effective therapy for pulmonary hypertension and hypoxic respiratory failure in term infants. Fourteen randomized controlled trials (n = 3430 infants) have been conducted on preterm infants at risk for chronic lung disease (CLD). The study results seem contradictory. DESIGN/METHODS: Individual-patient data meta-analysis included randomized controlled trials of preterm infants (<37 weeks' gestation). Outcomes were adjusted for trial differences and correlation between siblings. RESULTS: Data from 3298 infants in 12 trials (96%) were analyzed. There was no statistically significant effect of iNO on death or CLD (59% vs 61%: relative risk [RR]: 0.96 [95% confidence interval (CI): 0.92-1.01]; P = .11) or severe neurologic events on imaging (25% vs 23%: RR: 1.12 [95% CI: 0.98-1.28]; P = .09). There were no statistically significant differences in iNO effect according to any of the patient-level characteristics tested. In trials that used a starting iNO dose of >5 vs <= 5 ppm there was evidence of improved outcome (interaction P = .02); however, these differences were not observed at other levels of exposure to iNO. This result was driven primarily by 1 trial, which also differed according to overall dose, duration, timing, and indication for treatment; a significant reduction in death or CLD (RR: 0.85 [95% CI: 0.74-0.98]) was found. CONCLUSIONS: Routine use of iNO for treatment of respiratory failure in preterm infants cannot be recommended. The use of a higher starting dose might be associated with improved outcome, but because there were differences in the designs of these trials, it requires further examination. Pediatrics 2011;128:729-739

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available