Surfactant administration methods for premature newborns: LISA vs. INSURE comparative analysis.

Q2 Medicine
M Mansouri, K Servatyari, K Rahmani, S Sheikhahmadi, S Hemmatpour, A Eskandarifar, M Rahimzadeh
{"title":"Surfactant administration methods for premature newborns: LISA vs. INSURE comparative analysis.","authors":"M Mansouri, K Servatyari, K Rahmani, S Sheikhahmadi, S Hemmatpour, A Eskandarifar, M Rahimzadeh","doi":"10.3233/NPM-230194","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Respiratory Distress Syndrome (RDS) is the most common respiratory disorder among premature infants. The use of surfactant has significantly reduced respiratory complications and mortality. There are two conventional methods for administering surfactant: Intubate-Surfactant-Extubate (INSURE) and Less Invasive Surfactant Administration (LISA). This study aims to compare the effects of surfactant administration using these two methods on the treatment outcomes of premature newborns.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>In this retrospective cohort study, we included 100 premature newborns with RDS and spontaneous breathing who were admitted to the Neonatal Intensive Care Unit of Besat Hospital in Sanandaj city in 2021. Exclusion criteria comprised congenital anomalies and the needing for intubation for resuscitation at birth. The outcomes of epmericaly trated with two methods were compared: the LISA (50 neonates) and the INSURE (50 neonates). Our interesting outcomes were needing for mechanical ventilation, duration of ventilation, pneumothorax, pulmonary hemorrhage, severe retinopathy, CPAP duration, and bronchopulmonary dysplasia. Finally, we entered the data into STATA-14 statistical software and analyzed it using chi-square and t-tests.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>In this study, 69% of the neonates were boys. The LISA group exhibited significantly lower rates of need for mechanical ventilation (P = 0.003) and ventilation duration (P < 0.001) compared to the INSURE group. Conversely, there were no significant differences between the two groups (P > 0.05) in terms of pneumothorax, pulmonary hemorrhage, severe retinopathy, CPAP duration, and bronchopulmonary dysplasia rates.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The results of this study suggest that the LISA method is a safe and non-invasive approach for surfactant administration. Notably, it resulted in a reduced need for mechanical ventilation and decreased ventilation duration compared to the INSURE method.</p>","PeriodicalId":16537,"journal":{"name":"Journal of neonatal-perinatal medicine","volume":"17 2","pages":"233-239"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of neonatal-perinatal medicine","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3233/NPM-230194","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction: Respiratory Distress Syndrome (RDS) is the most common respiratory disorder among premature infants. The use of surfactant has significantly reduced respiratory complications and mortality. There are two conventional methods for administering surfactant: Intubate-Surfactant-Extubate (INSURE) and Less Invasive Surfactant Administration (LISA). This study aims to compare the effects of surfactant administration using these two methods on the treatment outcomes of premature newborns.

Materials and methods: In this retrospective cohort study, we included 100 premature newborns with RDS and spontaneous breathing who were admitted to the Neonatal Intensive Care Unit of Besat Hospital in Sanandaj city in 2021. Exclusion criteria comprised congenital anomalies and the needing for intubation for resuscitation at birth. The outcomes of epmericaly trated with two methods were compared: the LISA (50 neonates) and the INSURE (50 neonates). Our interesting outcomes were needing for mechanical ventilation, duration of ventilation, pneumothorax, pulmonary hemorrhage, severe retinopathy, CPAP duration, and bronchopulmonary dysplasia. Finally, we entered the data into STATA-14 statistical software and analyzed it using chi-square and t-tests.

Results: In this study, 69% of the neonates were boys. The LISA group exhibited significantly lower rates of need for mechanical ventilation (P = 0.003) and ventilation duration (P < 0.001) compared to the INSURE group. Conversely, there were no significant differences between the two groups (P > 0.05) in terms of pneumothorax, pulmonary hemorrhage, severe retinopathy, CPAP duration, and bronchopulmonary dysplasia rates.

Conclusion: The results of this study suggest that the LISA method is a safe and non-invasive approach for surfactant administration. Notably, it resulted in a reduced need for mechanical ventilation and decreased ventilation duration compared to the INSURE method.

早产新生儿的表面活性物质给药方法:LISA 与 INSURE 的对比分析。
简介呼吸窘迫综合征(RDS)是早产儿最常见的呼吸系统疾病。表面活性物质的使用大大降低了呼吸系统并发症和死亡率。目前有两种传统的表面活性物质给药方法:插管-表面活性物质-拔管(INSURE)和微创表面活性物质给药(LISA)。本研究旨在比较使用这两种方法给予表面活性物质对早产新生儿治疗效果的影响:在这项回顾性队列研究中,我们纳入了 2021 年在萨南达杰市贝萨特医院新生儿重症监护室住院的 100 名患有 RDS 和自主呼吸的早产新生儿。排除标准包括先天性畸形和出生时需要插管复苏。我们比较了用两种方法进行人工呼吸的结果:LISA(50 名新生儿)和 INSURE(50 名新生儿)。我们感兴趣的结果是需要机械通气、通气持续时间、气胸、肺出血、严重视网膜病变、CPAP持续时间和支气管肺发育不良。最后,我们将数据输入 STATA-14 统计软件,并使用卡方检验和 t 检验进行分析:本研究中,69% 的新生儿为男孩。在气胸、肺出血、严重视网膜病变、CPAP 持续时间和支气管肺发育不良率方面,LISA 组的机械通气需求率(P = 0.003)和通气持续时间(P 0.05)均明显较低:本研究结果表明,LISA 法是一种安全、无创的表面活性物质给药方法。结论:本研究结果表明,LISA 法是一种安全、无创的表面活性物质给药方法,与 INSURE 法相比,LISA 法显著减少了机械通气需求,缩短了通气持续时间。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Journal of neonatal-perinatal medicine
Journal of neonatal-perinatal medicine Medicine-Pediatrics, Perinatology and Child Health
CiteScore
2.00
自引率
0.00%
发文量
124
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信