Impact of Catheter Choice on Procedural Success of Minimally Invasive Surfactant Therapy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective 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 centers vary, with marked differences in the choice of catheter to instill surfactant. Studies report use of feeding catheters, multiaccess suction catheters, vascular catheters, and more recently custom-built catheters for this purpose. The impact of choice of catheter on procedural success and procedural adverse effects has not been reported. Our present study compares the procedural success and adverse effects of MIST using a semirigid vascular catheter (16G Angiocath-Hobart Method) versus a flexible multiaccess catheter (MAC). Study Design 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 and data on procedural details (premedication, type of catheter, etc.) were collected. The procedural success, number of attempts, and adverse effects between neonates who received MIST via MAC and 16G Angiocath was compared by using Chi-square test or Fisher's test as appropriate. A p-value of less that 0.05 was considered significant. Results A total of 139 neonates received surfactant via MIST method during the study period. Moreover, 93 neonates received the surfactant via MAC, while 46 received it via Angiocath. The baseline demographic characteristics in the two group were similar. A higher proportion of neonates in Angiocath group received Atropine (100 vs. 76%, p = 0.002) 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 > 0.99). 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. On exploratory analysis fentanyl use held significant association with less success, more desaturation, apneic episodes, and need of positive pressure ventilation /intubation. Conclusion The overall procedural success of MIST is similar in both catheter groups. The proportion of neonates requiring multiple attempts was lower with the Angiocath, though difference was not statistically significant. Desaturation episodes were seen more frequently in the Angiocath group, which was related to higher use of procedural sedation in this group. Key Points
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.023 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".