13 Impact of Catheter Choice on Procedural Success of Minimally Invasive Surfactant Therapy
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Abstract Primary Subject area Neonatal-Perinatal Medicine Background Surfactant delivery via a thin endotracheal catheter during spontaneous breathing, a technique called minimally invasive surfactant therapy (MIST), is an alternative to intubation and surfactant administration. Procedural details among different centres vary, with marked differences in the choice of catheter to instill surfactant. Studies report use of feeding catheters, multi-access catheters, vascular catheters and, recently, custom-designed catheters for this purpose. The impact of choice of catheter on procedural success and adverse effects has not been reported. Objectives The objective of the present study was to compare the procedural success and adverse effects of MIST, using a semi-rigid vascular catheter (16G Angiocath-Hobart Method) versus a flexible multi-access catheter (MAC). Design/Methods This was a retrospective review of prospectively collected data at a tertiary care neonatal intensive care unit in southwestern Ontario. All neonates who received surfactant via MIST between May 1, 2016 and September 30, 2020 were included in the study. Relevant baseline characteristics, data on procedural details (premedication, type of catheter) were collected. The procedural success, number of attempts, and adverse effects between neonates who received MIST via MAC and 16G Angiocath were compared using a Chi Square test or Fisher’s test, as appropriate. A P value of less than 0.05 was considered significant. Results A total of 139 neonates received surfactant via MIST method during the study period. 93 neonates received the surfactant via MAC, while 46 received it via Angiocath. The baseline demographic characteristics in the two groups were similar (Table 1). A higher proportion of neonates in the Angiocath group received atropine (100% vs. 76%, P =.002] and fentanyl (98% vs. 36%; p<0.001) than the MAC group. The procedural success was 91% in the Angiocath group and 89% in the MAC group (p >.99). Multiple attempts were needed in 24% of neonates in the Angiocath group, and 37% in the MAC group (p=0.158). More episodes of desaturations were noted in the Angiocath group (89%) than the MAC group (69%) (P=0.012). Other rates of common adverse effects were similar between the two groups (Table 2). Conclusion The overall procedural success of MIST was similar in both catheter groups. The proportion of neonates requiring multiple attempts was lower with Angiocath use, though this difference was not statistically significant. Desaturation episodes were seen more frequently in the Angiocath group, possibly related to higher use of procedural sedation in this group.
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 enseignantsNi 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.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,003 | 0,018 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,004 | 0,000 |
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.
score_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 découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».