MétaCan
Menu
← Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2605207309 · doi:10.1093/pch/17.3.137

Recommendations for neonatal surfactant therapy – addendum

2012· article· en· W2605207309 sur OpenAlexaff
Michael Dunn, Ann L Jefferies

Notice bibliographique

RevuePaediatrics & Child Health · 2012
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineMedicine
ThématiqueNeonatal Respiratory Health Research
Établissements canadiensCanadian Paediatric Society
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésMedicineContinuous positive airway pressureBronchopulmonary dysplasiaSurfactant therapyRespiratory distressIntubationGestational ageMechanical ventilationNeonatal respiratory distress syndromeIntensive careNeonatal intensive care unitPediatricsTracheal intubationPulmonary surfactantAnesthesiaIntensive care medicinePregnancyObstructive sleep apnea

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Many centres providing neonatal intensive care have increased their use of CPAP as a first-line method of respiratory support for preterm infants. This practice shift started after several descriptive, as well as before/after cohort studies, suggested that avoiding intubation and mechanical ventilation may help to reduce bronchopulmonary dysplasia (BPD) (1,2). There has been concern, however, that adopting this practice might deprive some infants of the proven benefits of expeditiously administered exogenous surfactant, especially those born at the youngest gestational ages who have traditionally been provided with prophylactic treatment. Recent randomized trials comparing elective intubation and prophylactic surfactant to initial management with nasal CPAP and selective surfactant therapy, suggest that the latter approach is safe and reduces the number of infants intubated and given surfactant (3–7). In the largest of these studies, even the infants at highest risk for respiratory distress syndrome (RDS) and its associated complications (ie, those born at 24 to 25 weeks’ gestational age), appeared to fare as well, if not better, when initially managed with nasal CPAP (4). These studies suggest that application of nasal CPAP shortly after birth to very preterm infants is an acceptable alternative strategy to elective intubation and prophylactic surfactant treatment. However, the criteria for surfactant treatment of infants initially supported with nasal CPAP have been inconsistent. A short period of observation on CPAP is necessary to enable clinicians to identify infants with surfactant sufficiency or mild RDS, who may be effectively managed without endotracheal intubation and surfactant treatment. Yet, a delay in treating a newborn with significant surfactant deficiency could result in a suboptimal response and/or an increased risk of complications. Criteria for selective treatment of infants initially managed with CPAP are needed. Verder et al (8), who were early advocates of the INSURE (INtubate, SURfactant, Extubate) approach for infants with RDS, found that preterm infants with RDS initially managed with nasal CPAP had better outcomes when treated with surfactant when reaching a fraction of inspired oxygen (FiO2) of approximately 0.37 to 0.55 versus 0.57 to 0.77. A systematic review examining timing of surfactant administration to preterm infants with RDS initially managed with CPAP also found that earlier treatment was more effective (9). From this review, when a low treatment threshold (FiO2 ≤0.45) for intubation and surfactant administration in the early treatment group was used, protection from air leak and BPD was enhanced. Examining several recent, large randomized trials yields additional useful information that can be used to guide practice (3–7). The two studies that did not allow treatment with surfactant of infants initially managed with nasal CPAP, until the requirement for supplemental oxygen exceeded an FiO2 of 0.60, showed increased rates of pneumothorax compared with the group intubated and given surfactant shortly after birth (3,7). The studies in which selective treatment was provided at lower supplemental oxygen thresholds saw no increase in air leak (4–6). These observations are consistent with a previous systematic review that found that babies with or at high risk for RDS had better outcomes if surfactant was given earlier rather than later in the clinical course (10). However, the prophylactic administration of surfactant with rapid extubation to nasal CPAP for infants at risk of RDS does not appear to convey an additional advantage compared with selective treatment after a short period of nasal CPAP, as long as the threshold for treatment is not too high (5,6). Based on available evidence, the Canadian Paediatric Society makes the following recommendations: Preterm neonates who receive treatment with nasal CPAP as their initial method of respiratory support should be provided with exogenous surfactant treatment if exhibiting clinical signs of RDS with a demonstrated need for escalating or sustained levels of supplemental oxygen to maintain adequate arterial oxygen saturation (Grade B recommendation). Treatment with surfactant should not be withheld if the FiO2 requirements exceed 0.5 (Grade A recommendation). Grades for recommendations are provided in Table 1 of the original statement FN 2005-01 (11,12).

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction machine sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,006
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,022
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Sans objet · Signal consensuel: Sans objet
GenreSignal candidat: Autre · Signal consensuel: aucune
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,049
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,164

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0060,022
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0010,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0010,002
Bibliométrie0,0030,002
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0010,001
Communication savante0,0020,003
Science ouverte0,0040,003
Intégrité de la recherche0,0080,006
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0490,041

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,094
Tête enseignante GPT0,402
Écart entre enseignants0,308 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeSans objet
Domainenon disponible
GenreAutre

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations1
Publié2012
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revuePaediatrics & Child Health→Même sujetNeonatal Respiratory Health Research→Travaux en français237 207→