4.7 Article

Randomized Trial Comparing 3 Approaches to the Initial Respiratory Management of Preterm Neonates

期刊

PEDIATRICS
卷 128, 期 5, 页码 E1069-E1076

出版社

AMER ACAD PEDIATRICS
DOI: 10.1542/peds.2010-3848

关键词

premature; resuscitation; surfactant; CPAP; randomized controlled trial

向作者/读者索取更多资源

OBJECTIVE: We designed a multicenter randomized trial to compare 3 approaches to the initial respiratory management of preterm neonates: prophylactic surfactant followed by a period of mechanical ventilation (prophylactic surfactant [PS]); prophylactic surfactant with rapid extubation to bubble nasal continuous positive airway pressure (intubate-surfactant-extubate [ISX]) or initial management with bubble continuous positive airway pressure and selective surfactant treatment (nCPAP). DESIGN/METHODS: Neonates born at 260/7 to 296/7 weeks' gestation were enrolled at participating Vermont Oxford Network centers and randomly assigned to PS, ISX, or nCPAP groups before delivery. Primary outcome was the incidence of death or bronchopulmonary dysplasia (BPD) at 36 weeks' postmenstrual age. RESULTS: 648 infants enrolled at 27 centers. The study was halted before the desired sample size was reached because of declining enrollment. When compared with the PS group, the relative risk of BPD or death was 0.78 (95% confidence interval: 0.59-1.03) for the ISX group and 0.83 (95% confidence interval: 0.64-1.09) for the nCPAP group. There were no statistically significant differences in mortality or other complications of prematurity. In the nCPAP group, 48% were managed without intubation and ventilation, and 54% without surfactant treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Preterm neonates were initially managed with either nCPAP or PS with rapid extubation to nCPAP had similar clinical outcomes to those treated with PS followed by a period of mechanical ventilation. An approach that uses early nCPAP leads to a reduction in the number of infants who are intubated and given surfactant. Pediatrics 2011; 128: e1069-e1076

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

4.7
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