4.6 Article

Respiratory management of infants with chronic neonatal lung disease beyond the NICU: A position statement from the Thoracic Society of Australia and New Zealand*

期刊

RESPIROLOGY
卷 25, 期 8, 页码 880-888

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/resp.13876

关键词

bronchopulmonary dysplasia; oximetry; oxygen; palivizumab; premature infant

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Chronic neonatal lung disease (CNLD) is defined as continued need for any form of respiratory support (supplemental oxygen and/or assisted ventilation) beyond 36 weeks PMA. Low-flow supplemental oxygen facilitates discharge from hospital of infants with CNLD who are hypoxic in air and is widely used despite lack of evidence on the most appropriate minimum mean target oxygen saturations. Furthermore, there are minimal data to guide the home monitoring, titration or weaning of supplemental oxygen in these infants. The purpose of this position statement is to provide a guide for the respiratory management of infants with CNLD, with special emphasis on role and logistics of supplemental oxygen therapy beyond the NICU stay. Reflecting a variety of clinical practices and infant comorbidities (presence of pulmonary hypertension, retinopathy of prematurity and adequacy of growth), it is recommended that the minimum mean target range for SpO(2) during overnight oximetry to be 93-95% with less than 5% of total recording time to be below 90% SpO(2). Safety of short-term disconnection from supplemental oxygen should be assessed before discharge, with majority of infants with CNLD not ready for discharge until supplemental oxygen requirement is <= 0.5 L/min. Sleep-time assessment of oxygenation with continuous overnight oximetry is recommended when weaning supplemental oxygen. Palivizumab is considered safe and effective for the reduction of hospital admissions with RSV infection in this group. This statement would be useful for paediatricians, neonatologists, respiratory and sleep physicians and general practitioners managing children with CNLD.

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

4.6
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