4.2 Article

Effect of prophylactic caffeine in the treatment of apnea in very low birth weight infants: a meta-analysis

出版社

TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/14767058.2023.2214659

关键词

Apnea of prematurity; caffeine; very low birth weight infants; meta-analysis

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The meta-analysis investigated the effect of prophylactic caffeine use in treating apnea and other clinical outcomes in very low birth weight infants. The results showed that prophylactic caffeine use was associated with a lower probability of apnea, shorter duration of mechanical ventilation and oxygen therapy, and reduced incidence of bronchopulmonary dysplasia, patent ductus arteriosus, and retinopathy of prematurity. There was no increased risk of necrotizing enterocolitis, intraventricular hemorrhage, and death before hospital discharge.
Objective The purpose of this meta-analysis is to investigate the effect of prophylactic caffeine use in the treatment of apnea and other clinical outcomes in very low birth weight infants. Methods We searched PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, Scopus, EBSCO, CNKI, and Cochrane databases for all relevant studies up to May 20, 2022. The meta-analysis was carried out using Stata16.0 and RevMan5.4 software. Results Eleven randomized controlled trials were evaluated, including a total of 4375 very low birth weight infants. The results demonstrated that prophylactic caffeine use was linked with a significantly lower probability of AOP (OR 0.31, 95% CI: 0.19-0.49, p < .001), duration of mechanical ventilation and oxygen therapy when compared to the control group. It also reduced the incidence of BPD (OR 0.62, 95% CI: 0.54-0.71, p < .001), PDA (OR 0.49, 95% CI: 0.30-0.80, p = .005) and ROP (OR 0.76, 95% CI: 0.65-0.90, p = .001), without raising the risk of NEC, IVH and death before hospital discharge (p > .05). Conclusion This meta-analysis confirmed the beneficial effects of prophylactic caffeine in preventing apnea of prematurity and improving clinical outcomes.

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

4.2
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