MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W4364353708 · doi:10.1002/14651858.cd013588.pub2

Interventions for patent ductus arteriosus (PDA) in preterm infants: an overview of Cochrane Systematic Reviews

2023· review· en· W4364353708 sur OpenAlexaff
Souvik Mitra, Willem P. de Boode, Dany E. Weisz, Prakesh S. Shah

Notice bibliographique

RevueCochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · 2023
Typereview
Langueen
DomaineMedicine
ThématiqueCardiovascular Conditions and Treatments
Établissements canadiensHealth Sciences CentreMount Sinai HospitalSunnybrook Health Science CentreIzaak Walton Killam Health CentreUniversity of TorontoDalhousie University
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésMedicineSystematic reviewPsychological interventionDuctus arteriosusCochrane LibraryPediatricsRandomized controlled trialMEDLINEClinical trialIntensive care medicineInternal medicinePsychiatry

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Patent ductus arteriosus (PDA) is associated with significant morbidity and mortality in preterm infants. Several non-pharmacological, pharmacological, and surgical approaches have been explored to prevent or treat a PDA. OBJECTIVES: To summarise Cochrane Neonatal evidence on interventions (pharmacological or surgical) for the prevention of PDA and related complications, and interventions for the management of asymptomatic and symptomatic PDA in preterm infants. METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews on 20 October 2022 for ongoing and published Cochrane Reviews on the prevention and treatment of PDA in preterm (< 37 weeks' gestation) or low birthweight (< 2500 g) infants. We included all published Cochrane Reviews assessing the following categories of interventions: pharmacological therapy using prostaglandin inhibitor drugs (indomethacin, ibuprofen, and acetaminophen), adjunctive pharmacological interventions, invasive PDA closure procedures, and non-pharmacological interventions. Two overview authors independently checked the eligibility of the reviews retrieved by the search, and extracted data from the included reviews using a predefined data extraction form. Any disagreements were resolved by discussion with a third overview author. Two overview authors independently assessed the methodological quality of the included reviews using the AMSTAR 2 (A MeaSurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews) tool. We reported the GRADE certainty of evidence as assessed by the respective review authors using summary of findings tables. MAIN RESULTS: We included 16 Cochrane Reviews, corresponding to 138 randomised clinical trials (RCT) and 11,856 preterm infants, on the prevention and treatment of PDA in preterm infants. One of the 16 reviews had no included studies, and therefore, did not contribute to the results. Six reviews reported on prophylactic interventions for the prevention of PDA and included pharmacological prophylaxis with prostaglandin inhibitor drugs, prophylactic surgical PDA ligation, and non-pharmacologic interventions (chest shielding during phototherapy and restriction of fluid intake); one review reported on the use of indomethacin for the management of asymptomatic PDA; nine reviews reported on interventions for the management of symptomatic PDA, and included pharmacotherapy with prostaglandin inhibitor drugs in various routes and dosages, surgical PDA ligation, and adjunct therapies (use of furosemide and dopamine in conjunction with indomethacin). The quality of reviews varied. Two reviews were assessed to be high quality, seven reviews were of moderate quality, five of low quality, while two reviews were deemed to be of critically low quality. For prevention of PDA, prophylactic indomethacin reduces severe intraventricular haemorrhage (IVH; relative risk (RR) 0.66, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.53 to 0.82; 14 RCTs, 2588 infants), and the need for invasive PDA closure (RR 0.51, 95% CI 0.37 to 0.71; 8 RCTs, 1791 infants), but it does not appear to affect the composite outcome of death or moderate/severe neurodevelopmental disability (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.15; 3 RCTs, 1491 infants). Prophylactic ibuprofen probably marginally reduces severe IVH (RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.45 to 1.00; 7 RCTs, 925 infants; moderate-certainty evidence), and the need for invasive PDA closure (RR 0.46, 95% CI 0.22 to 0.96; 7 RCTs, 925 infants; moderate-certainty evidence). The evidence is very uncertain on the effect of prophylactic acetaminophen on severe IVH (RR 1.09, 95% CI 0.07 to 16.39; 1 RCT, 48 infants). Necrotising enterocolitis (NEC) was lower with both prophylactic surgical ligation (RR 0.25, 95% CI 0.08 to 0.83; 1 RCT, 84 infants), and fluid restriction (RR 0.43, 95% CI 0.21 to 0.87; 4 RCTs, 526 infants). For treatment of asymptomatic PDA, indomethacin appears to reduce the development of symptomatic PDA post-treatment (RR 0.36, 95% CI 0.19 to 0.68; 3 RCTs, 97 infants; quality of source review: critically low). For treatment of symptomatic PDA, all available prostaglandin inhibitor drugs appear to be more effective in closing a PDA than placebo or no treatment (indomethacin: RR 0.30, 95% CI 0.23 to 0.38; 10 RCTs, 654 infants; high-certainty evidence; ibuprofen: RR 0.62, 95% CI 0.44 to 0.86; 2 RCTs, 206 infants; moderate-certainty evidence; early administration of acetaminophen: RR 0.35, 95% CI 0.23 to 0.53; 2 RCTs, 127 infants; low-certainty evidence). Oral ibuprofen appears to be more effective in PDA closure than intravenous (IV) ibuprofen (RR 0.38, 95% CI 0.26 to 0.56; 5 RCTs, 406 infants; moderate-certainty evidence). High-dose ibuprofen appears to be more effective in PDA closure than standard-dose ibuprofen (RR 0.37, 95% CI 0.22 to 0.61; 3 RCTs, 190 infants; moderate-certainty evidence). With respect to adverse outcomes, compared to indomethacin administration, NEC appears to be lower with ibuprofen (any route; RR 0.68, 95% CI 0.49 to 0.94; 18 RCTs, 1292 infants; moderate-certainty evidence), oral ibuprofen (RR 0.41, 95% CI 0.23 to 0.73; 7 RCTs, 249 infants; low-certainty evidence), and with acetaminophen (RR 0.42, 95% CI 0.19 to 0.96; 4 RCTs, 384 infants; low-certainty evidence). However, NEC appears to be increased with a prolonged course of indomethacin versus a shorter course (RR 1.87, 95% CI 1.07 to 3.27; 4 RCTs, 310 infants). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: This overview summarised the evidence from 16 Cochrane Reviews of RCTs regarding the effects of interventions for the prevention and treatment of PDA in preterm infants. Prophylactic indomethacin reduces severe IVH, but does not appear to affect the composite outcome of death or moderate/severe neurodevelopmental disability. Prophylactic ibuprofen probably marginally reduces severe IVH (moderate-certainty evidence), while the evidence is very uncertain on the effect of prophylactic acetaminophen on severe IVH. All available prostaglandin inhibitor drugs appear to be effective in symptomatic PDA closure compared to no treatment (high-certainty evidence for indomethacin; moderate-certainty evidence for ibuprofen; low-certainty evidence for early administration of acetaminophen). Oral ibuprofen appears to be more effective in PDA closure than IV ibuprofen (moderate-certainty evidence). High dose ibuprofen appears to be more effective in PDA closure than standard-dose ibuprofen (moderate-certainty evidence). There are currently two ongoing reviews, one on fluid restriction for symptomatic PDA, and the other on invasive management of PDA in preterm infants.

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)0,012
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,049
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Revue systématique · Signal consensuel: Revue systématique
GenreSignal candidat: Synthèse · Signal consensuel: Synthèse
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,015
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,062

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0120,049
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0030,002
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0120,011
Bibliométrie0,0150,013
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0010,001
Communication savante0,0030,003
Science ouverte0,0020,002
Intégrité de la recherche0,0030,002
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0050,000

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.

Tête enseignante Opus0,398
Tête enseignante GPT0,469
Écart entre enseignants0,070 · 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'étudeRevue systématique
Domainenon disponible
GenreSynthèse

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

En bref

Citations81
Publié2023
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueCochrane Database of Systematic ReviewsMême sujetCardiovascular Conditions and TreatmentsTravaux en français237 207