4.6 Article

Prediction of respiratory failure in late-preterm infants with respiratory distress at birth

期刊

EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF PEDIATRICS
卷 170, 期 1, 页码 45-50

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00431-010-1264-x

关键词

Late-preterm; Respiratory failure indices; Respiratory distress

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The aim of this study was to evaluate indices of respiratory failure in terms of their ability to predict respiratory impairment and need for ventilatory support in late-preterm neonates with respiratory distress. Arterial blood gas data during the first 12 postnatal hours or until intubation were recorded in 155 neonates with gestational age 34(0/7)-36(6/7) weeks admitted in the NICU with respiratory distress between January 2006 and June 2008. Alveolar-arterial oxygen tension difference (A-aDO(2)), arterial to alveolar oxygen tension ratio (a/A ratio), and partial arterial oxygen tension to inspired oxygen fraction ratio (PaO2/FiO(2)) were calculated. Considering the worst single value of each parameter, receiver operating characteristic curve analyses and area under the curve (AUC) comparisons were used to evaluate their predictive performance. Fifty-five neonates (35.5%) required mechanical ventilation. The predictive performances of the maximum A-aDO(2) (AUC 0.97), minimum a/A ratio (AUC 0.95), and minimum PaO2/FiO(2) (AUC 0.95) were similar. The A-aDO(2) at a threshold of >200 mmHg proved to be more effective than the other parameters, having excellent positive and negative likelihood ratios of 24.5 and 0.02, respectively. This threshold was achieved by 98.25% of the neonates who developed respiratory failure at a median of 3 h before the ventilatory support to be definitely decided. Composite indices, such as A-aDO(2), a/A ratio, and PaO2/FiO(2), can reasonably predict respiratory failure in late-preterm neonates with respiratory distress, allowing for closer monitoring, early medical intervention, or transfer to a level III neonatal unit.

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