4.4 Article

Timing of antenatal steroids exposure and its effects on neonates

Journal

ARCHIVES OF GYNECOLOGY AND OBSTETRICS
Volume 296, Issue 6, Pages 1091-1096

Publisher

SPRINGER HEIDELBERG
DOI: 10.1007/s00404-017-4543-1

Keywords

Antenatal corticosteroids; Neonatal respiratory distress syndrome; Preterm labour; Window of efficacy; Neonatal outcomes

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objective Antenatal corticosteroid (ACS) has long been regarded as the standard of care for women at risk of preterm labour. There are, however, varying practices and regimes in ACS administration. It is unclear if a window of efficacy truly exists and if the benefits of ACS would diminish after 7 days from the first dose. The objective of this study is to determine if the time interval between antenatal corticosteroids and delivery influences the neonatal outcomes in preterm deliveries from 23(+5) to 36(+6) weeks' gestation. Methods This is a retrospective analysis of 302 women and 352 infants who delivered from 23(+5) to 36(+6) weeks' gestation in KK Women's and Children's Hospital from 1st November 2014 to 31st January 2015. The timings of the first two doses of corticosteroids and the delivery were retrieved. Neonatal outcomes were compared between those delivering within 7 days and those delivering beyond 7 days of first dose of ACS. Results 61.2% of preterm infants received at least one dose of antenatal corticosteroids, of which 23.6% received it within the window of efficacy. Overall incidence of respiratory distress asyndrome in our study is 17.6%. Significantly, neonates with ACS exposure beyond 7 days were seven times more likely to have RDS as compared to those exposed to ACS within the window of efficacy (RR 0.535, 95% CI 0.166-1.72), after adjusting for potential confounders. Conclusion The results of this study support the current practice among obstetricians to aim to administer ACS within 7 days of delivery.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available