4.5 Review

Aerosol Delivery of Lung Surfactant and Nasal CPAP in the Treatment of Neonatal Respiratory Distress Syndrome

期刊

FRONTIERS IN PEDIATRICS
卷 10, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

FRONTIERS MEDIA SA
DOI: 10.3389/fped.2022.923010

关键词

surfactant; nasal CPAP; non-invasive ventilation; aerosol delivery; nebulization; neonatal respiratory distress syndrome; vibrating mesh nebulizers

资金

  1. Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation [INV-001227, INV-040846]
  2. grant conditions of the Foundation
  3. Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation [INV-001227] Funding Source: Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Non-invasive surfactant administration is a promising method for delivering surfactant to preterm infants, and studies have shown its safety and potential. Further improvements in technology and development of synthetic surfactants are necessary for optimal effectiveness.
After shifting away from invasive mechanical ventilation and intratracheal instillation of surfactant toward non-invasive ventilation with nasal CPAP and less invasive surfactant administration in order to prevent bronchopulmonary dysplasia in preterm infants with respiratory distress syndrome, fully non-invasive surfactant nebulization is the next Holy Grail in neonatology. Here we review the characteristics of animal-derived (clinical) and new advanced synthetic lung surfactants and improvements in nebulization technology required to secure optimal lung deposition and effectivity of non-invasive lung surfactant administration. Studies in surfactant-deficient animals and preterm infants have demonstrated the safety and potential of non-invasive surfactant administration, but also provide new directions for the development of synthetic lung surfactant destined for aerosol delivery, implementation of breath-actuated nebulization and optimization of nasal CPAP, nebulizer circuit and nasal interface. Surfactant nebulization may offer a truly non-invasive option for surfactant delivery to preterm infants in the near future.

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

4.5
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