4.2 Article

Prophylactic Interventions in Neonatology: How Do They Fare in Real Life?

期刊

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PERINATOLOGY
卷 32, 期 12, 页码 1098-1104

出版社

THIEME MEDICAL PUBL INC
DOI: 10.1055/s-0035-1556882

关键词

infant; premature; steroids; indomethacin; phototherapy; prophylaxis; outcome

资金

  1. Canadian Institutes of Health Research
  2. Mount Sinai Hospital, Toronto

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective This study aims to evaluate the association of prophylactic antenatal steroids, indomethacin, and phototherapy with extremely preterm infant outcomes in a pragmatic setting. Study Design Retrospective study of infants born at < 28 weeks gestation and admitted to 26 Canadian Neonatal Network neonatal intensive care units between 2010 and 2012. Mortality, severe neurological injury, retinopathy, necrotizing enterocolitis, bronchopulmonary dysplasia, nosocomial infection, and patent ductus arteriosus ligation rates were compared between infants who received antenatal steroids, prophylactic indomethacin, and/or prophylactic phototherapy and those who did not. Results Of 3,465 eligible infants, 2,900 (84%) received antenatal steroids, 269 (8%) prophylactic indomethacin, and 403 (12%) prophylactic phototherapy. Associations were observed between antenatal steroids and mortality (adjusted odds ration [aOR] 0.47 [0.33-0.66]) and severe neurological injury (aOR 0.60 [0.46-0.77]), indomethacin and ductus arteriosus ligations (aOR 0.52 [0.31-0.87]), but not severe neurological injury (aOR 1.12 [0.81-1.54]), but phototherapy was not associated with any of the neonatal outcomes despite reductions in bilirubin. Conclusion Antenatal steroids were associated with reduced mortality and neurological injury, prophylactic indomethacin was not associated with reduction in neurological injury and phototherapy was not associated with any improvement in neonatal outcomes. In a pragmatic setting, outside randomized controlled trials, the effectiveness and safety of prophylactic interventions in extremely preterm neonates vary; ongoing monitoring is warranted.

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