↓ Skip to main content

Early surfactant administration with brief ventilation vs. selective surfactant and continued mechanical ventilation for preterm infants with or at risk for respiratory distress syndrome

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, October 2007
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (63rd percentile)

Mentioned by

wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
301 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
210 Mendeley
connotea
1 Connotea
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Early surfactant administration with brief ventilation vs. selective surfactant and continued mechanical ventilation for preterm infants with or at risk for respiratory distress syndrome
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, October 2007
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd003063.pub3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Timothy P. Stevens, Mats Blennow, Eliza H Myers, Roger Soll

Abstract

Both prophylactic and early surfactant replacement therapy reduce mortality and pulmonary complications in ventilated infants with respiratory distress syndrome (RDS) compared with later selective surfactant administration. However, continued post-surfactant intubation and ventilation are risk factors for bronchopulmonary dysplasia (BPD). The purpose of this review was to compare outcomes between two strategies of surfactant administration in infants with RDS; prophylactic or early surfactant administration followed by prompt extubation, compared with later, selective use of surfactant followed by continued mechanical ventilation. To compare two treatment strategies in preterm infants with or at risk for RDS: early surfactant administration with brief mechanical ventilation (less than one hour) followed by extubation vs. later selective surfactant administration, continued mechanical ventilation, and extubation from low respiratory support. Two populations of infants receiving early surfactant were considered: spontaneously breathing infants with signs of RDS (who receive surfactant administration during evolution of RDS prior to requiring intubation for respiratory failure) and infants at high risk for RDS (who receive prophylactic surfactant administration within 15 minutes after birth). Searches were made of the Oxford Database of Perinatal Trials, MEDLINE (1966 - December 2006), CINAHL (1982 to December Week 2, 2006), EMBASE (1980 - December 2006), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, The Cochrane Library, Issue 4, 2006), Pediatric Research (1990 - 2006), abstracts, expert informants and hand searching. No language restrictions were applied. Randomized or quasi-randomized controlled clinical trials comparing early surfactant administration with planned brief mechanical ventilation (less than one hour) followed by extubation vs. selective surfactant administration continued mechanical ventilation, and extubation from low respiratory support. Data were sought regarding effects on the incidence of mechanical ventilation (ventilation continued or initiated beyond one hour after surfactant administration), incidence of bronchopulmonary dysplasia (BPD), chronic lung disease (CLD), mortality, duration of mechanical ventilation, duration of hospitalization, duration of oxygen therapy, duration of respiratory support (including CPAP and nasal cannula), number of patients receiving surfactant, number of surfactant doses administered per patient, incidence of air leak syndromes (pulmonary interstitial emphysema, pneumothorax), patent ductus arteriosus requiring treatment, pulmonary hemorrhage, and other complications of prematurity. Stratified analysis was performed according to inspired oxygen threshold for early intubation and surfactant administration in the treatment group: inspired oxygen within lower (FiO2< 0.45) or higher (FiO2 > 0.45) range at study entry. Treatment effect was expressed as relative risk (RR) and risk difference (RD) for categorical variables, and weighted mean difference (WMD) for continuous variables. Six randomized controlled clinical trials met selection criteria and were included in this review. In these studies of infants with signs and symptoms of RDS, intubation and early surfactant therapy followed by extubation to nasal CPAP (NCPAP) compared with later selective surfactant administration was associated with a lower incidence of mechanical ventilation [typical RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.57, 0.79], air leak syndromes [typical RR 0.52, 95% CI 0.28, 0.96] and BPD [typical RR 0.51, 95% CI 0.26, 0.99]. A larger proportion of infants in the early surfactant group received surfactant than in the selective surfactant group [typical RR 1.62, 95% CI 1.41, 1.86]. The number of surfactant doses per patient was significantly greater among patients randomized to the early surfactant group [WMD 0.57 doses per patient, 95% CI 0.44, 0.69]. In stratified analysis by FIO2 at study entry, a lower threshold for treatment (FIO2< 0.45) resulted in lower incidence of airleak [typical RR 0.46 and 95% CI 0.23, 0.93] and BPD [typical RR 0.43, 95% CI 0.20, 0.92]. A higher treatment threshold (FIO2 > 0.45) at study entry was associated with a higher incidence of patent ductus arteriosus requiring treatment [typical RR 2.15, 95% CI 1.09, 4.13]. Early surfactant replacement therapy with extubation to NCPAP compared with later selective surfactant replacement and continued mechanical ventilation with extubation from low ventilator support is associated with less need mechanical ventilation, lower incidence of BPD and fewer air leak syndromes. A lower treatment threshold (FIO2< 0.45) confers greater advantage in reducing the incidences of airleak syndromes and BPD; moreover a higher treatment threshold (FIO2 at study > 0.45) was associated with increased risk of PDA. These data suggest that treatment with surfactant by transient intubation using a low treatment threshold (FIO2< 0.45) is preferable to later, selective surfactant therapy by transient intubation using a higher threshold for study entry (FIO2 > 0.45) or at the time of respiratory failure and initiation of mechanical ventilation.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 210 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
France 3 1%
United Kingdom 2 <1%
Spain 1 <1%
Peru 1 <1%
Denmark 1 <1%
Japan 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
Unknown 199 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Postgraduate 25 12%
Other 25 12%
Researcher 24 11%
Student > Master 22 10%
Professor 20 10%
Other 94 45%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 146 70%
Nursing and Health Professions 20 10%
Unspecified 17 8%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 5 2%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 2%
Other 18 9%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 05 September 2017.
All research outputs
#3,639,772
of 12,527,093 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#5,948
of 8,923 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#93,052
of 264,073 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#107
of 141 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,527,093 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 49th percentile – i.e., 49% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 8,923 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 21.2. This one is in the 28th percentile – i.e., 28% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 264,073 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 63% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 141 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 24th percentile – i.e., 24% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.