4.6 Article

The Randomized, Controlled Trial of Late Surfactant: Effects on Respiratory Outcomes at 1-Year Corrected Age

期刊

JOURNAL OF PEDIATRICS
卷 183, 期 -, 页码 19-+

出版社

MOSBY-ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.jpeds.2016.12.059

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (NHLBI) [U01 HL094338, U01 HL094355, UL1 TR000004]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective To determine the effects of late surfactant on respiratory outcomes determined at 1-year corrected age in the Trial of Late Surfactant (TOLSURF), which randomized newborns of extremely low gestational age (<= 28 weeks' gestational age) ventilated at 7-14 days to late surfactant and inhaled nitric oxide vs inhaled nitric oxidealone (control). Study design Caregivers were surveyed in a double-blinded manner at 3, 6, 9, and 12 months' corrected age to collect information on respiratory resource use (infant medication use, home support, and hospitalization). Infants were classified for composite outcomes of pulmonary morbidity (no PM, determined in infants with no reported respiratory resource use) and persistent PM (determined in infants with any resource use in >= 3 surveys). Results Infants (n = 450, late surfactant n = 217, control n = 233) were 25.3 +/- 1.2 weeks' gestation and 713 +/- 164 g at birth. In the late surfactant group, fewer infants received home respiratory support than in the control group (35.8% vs 52.9%, relative benefit [RB] 1.28 [95% CI 1.07-1.55]). There was no benefit of late surfactant for No PM vs PM (RB 1.27; 95% CI 0.89-1.81) or no persistent PM vs persistent PM (RB 1.01; 95% CI 0.87-1.17). After adjustment for imbalances in baseline characteristics, relative benefit of late surfactant treatment increased: RB 1.40 (95% CI 0.89-1.80) for no PM and RB 1.24 (95% CI 1.08-1.42) for no persistent PM. Conclusion Treatment of newborns of extremely low gestational age with late surfactant in combination with inhaled nitric oxide decreased use of home respiratory support and may decrease persistent pulmonary morbidity.

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