4.3 Article Proceedings Paper

Neonatal Respiratory Distress Syndrome: An Inflammatory Disease?

期刊

NEONATOLOGY
卷 99, 期 4, 页码 316-319

出版社

KARGER
DOI: 10.1159/000326619

关键词

Respiratory distress syndrome; Preterm neonate; Inflammation; Surfactant

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Surfactant substitution has been a major breakthrough in the treatment of neonatal respiratory distress syndrome (RDS), primarily caused by a lack of pulmonary surfactant; it has significantly reduced mortality and acute pulmonary morbidity in preterm infants. Some very immature infants, however, have a poor response to surfactant replacement or an early relapse. This brief article is based on the hypothesis that neonatal RDS has a complex and multifactorial pathogenesis characterized by an injurious inflammatory sequence in the immature lung. Fetal exposure to chorioamnionitis has been shown to initiate an inflammatory reaction beginning in utero. A 'low-grade' inflammatory stimulus in utero may 'prime' the fetal lung for accelerated maturation of the surfactant system, especially in conjunction with prenatal steroids, and may protect the preterm infant from developing moderate to severe RDS. Depending on the severity of inflammatory injury to the alveolar-capillary unit, however, serum proteins will leak into the airways and induce surfactant inactivation. Following this intrauterine 'first hit', the immature infant may develop severe RDS and have a poor response to surfactant substitution. Secondary insults such as traumatic stabilization techniques, oxygen toxicity, initiation of mechanical ventilation and others injure the immature lung immediately after birth and perpetuate and may aggravate the inflammatory process. Observational studies in preterm infants and animal experiments support this concept. Whenever surfactant inactivation is suspected, higher or repetitive doses of natural surfactant may help to overcome surfactant inactivation and to restore lung function. Copyright (C) 2011 S. Karger AG, Basel

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据