Comparison of Respiratory Outcomes between Less Invasive Surfactant Administration and the Intubation-Surfactant-Extubation Technique in Premature Infants with Respiratory Distress Syndrome
H. Kim, Hyun Ho Kim, Misun Yang, Y. Han, S. Sung, S. Ahn, Y. Chang, W. Park
{"title":"Comparison of Respiratory Outcomes between Less Invasive Surfactant Administration and the Intubation-Surfactant-Extubation Technique in Premature Infants with Respiratory Distress Syndrome","authors":"H. Kim, Hyun Ho Kim, Misun Yang, Y. Han, S. Sung, S. Ahn, Y. Chang, W. Park","doi":"10.5385/nm.2020.27.3.99","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Purpose: To compare respiratory outcomes between less invasive surfactant admi nistration (LISA) and the intubationsurfactantextubation (INSURE) technique in premature infants with respiratory distress syndrome (RDS). Methods: We performed a retrospective medical chart review for 75 premature in fants who were born at a gestational age (GA) of ≤34 weeks (between January 2017 and December 2019) and developed RDS after birth. Data on the demographic and outcome variables, including respiratory outcomes, were collected and compared between the infants who received LISA and those who received INSURE as a rescue therapy for RDS. Results: No signifcant differences in GA, birth weight, and other demographic characteristics were found between the LISA and INSURE groups (GA: 28.7 weeks vs. 28.8 weeks, P=0.449; birth weight: 1,236 g vs. 1,124 g, P=0.714). At the delivery room, although the infants showed no significant difference in positive pressure ventilation rate after birth, the LISA group showed a higher rate of continuous positive airway pressure application than the INSURE group. The infants in the LISA group presented a higher risk of requiring multiple doses of surfactant for RDS than the infants in the INSURE group (57% vs. 17.5%, P=0.001). However, the duration of invasive and/ or noninvasive respiratory support and incidence of bronchopulmonary dysplasia showed no signifciant difference between the two groups. Conclusion: In the present study, no significant differences in the incidence of in hospital respiratory outcomes such as bronchopulmonary dysplasia were found between the LISA and INSURE groups. These results suggest that LISA can be an alternative therapeutic option for treating RDS to avoid intubation and mechanical ventilation in premature infants.","PeriodicalId":32945,"journal":{"name":"Neonatal Medicine","volume":"27 1","pages":"99-104"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-08-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Neonatal Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5385/nm.2020.27.3.99","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1
Abstract
Purpose: To compare respiratory outcomes between less invasive surfactant admi nistration (LISA) and the intubationsurfactantextubation (INSURE) technique in premature infants with respiratory distress syndrome (RDS). Methods: We performed a retrospective medical chart review for 75 premature in fants who were born at a gestational age (GA) of ≤34 weeks (between January 2017 and December 2019) and developed RDS after birth. Data on the demographic and outcome variables, including respiratory outcomes, were collected and compared between the infants who received LISA and those who received INSURE as a rescue therapy for RDS. Results: No signifcant differences in GA, birth weight, and other demographic characteristics were found between the LISA and INSURE groups (GA: 28.7 weeks vs. 28.8 weeks, P=0.449; birth weight: 1,236 g vs. 1,124 g, P=0.714). At the delivery room, although the infants showed no significant difference in positive pressure ventilation rate after birth, the LISA group showed a higher rate of continuous positive airway pressure application than the INSURE group. The infants in the LISA group presented a higher risk of requiring multiple doses of surfactant for RDS than the infants in the INSURE group (57% vs. 17.5%, P=0.001). However, the duration of invasive and/ or noninvasive respiratory support and incidence of bronchopulmonary dysplasia showed no signifciant difference between the two groups. Conclusion: In the present study, no significant differences in the incidence of in hospital respiratory outcomes such as bronchopulmonary dysplasia were found between the LISA and INSURE groups. These results suggest that LISA can be an alternative therapeutic option for treating RDS to avoid intubation and mechanical ventilation in premature infants.
目的:比较微创表面活性剂输注(LISA)和插管表面活性剂拔管(INSURE)技术在早产儿呼吸窘迫综合征(RDS)中的呼吸效果。方法:我们对75名胎龄≤34周(2017年1月至2019年12月)出生并在出生后出现RDS的早产儿进行了回顾性医学图表审查。收集人口统计学和结果变量的数据,包括呼吸系统结果,并在接受LISA的婴儿和接受INSURE作为RDS抢救治疗的婴儿之间进行比较。结果:LISA组和INSURE组在GA、出生体重和其他人口统计学特征方面没有发现显著差异(GA:28.7周vs.28.8周,P=0.449;出生体重:1236 g vs.1124 g,P=0.714)。在产房,尽管婴儿出生后正压通气率没有显着差异,LISA组显示出比INSURE组更高的持续气道正压应用率。LISA组的婴儿比INSURE组的婴儿需要多剂量表面活性物质治疗RDS的风险更高(57%对17.5%,P=0.001)。然而,有创和/或无创呼吸支持的持续时间和支气管肺发育不良的发生率在两组之间没有显着差异。结论:在本研究中,LISA组和INSURE组在院内呼吸系统不良(如支气管肺发育不良)的发生率没有发现显著差异。这些结果表明,LISA可以作为治疗RDS的替代治疗选择,以避免早产儿插管和机械通气。