Laryngeal mask airway surfactant administration for prevention of morbidity and mortality in preterm infants with or at risk of respiratory distress syndrome

BACKGROUND

Laryngeal mask airway surfactant administration (S-LMA) has the potential benefit of surfactant administration whilst avoiding endotracheal intubation and ventilation, ventilator-induced lung injury and bronchopulmonary dysplasia (BPD).

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the benefits and harms of S-LMA either as prophylaxis or treatment (rescue) compared to placebo, no treatment, or intratracheal surfactant administration via an endotracheal tube (ETT) with the intent to rapidly extubate (InSurE) or extubate at standard criteria (S-ETT) or via other less-invasive surfactant administration (LISA) methods on morbidity and mortality in preterm infants with or at risk of respiratory distress syndrome (RDS).

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, and three trial registries in December 2022.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs), cluster- or quasi-RCTs of S-LMA compared to placebo, no treatment, or other routes of administration (nebulised, pharyngeal instillation of surfactant before the first breath, thin endotracheal catheter surfactant administration or intratracheal surfactant instillation) on morbidity and mortality in preterm infants at risk of RDS. We considered published, unpublished and ongoing trials.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed studies for inclusion and extracted data. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence.

MAIN RESULTS

We included eight trials (seven new to this update) recruiting 510 newborns. Five trials (333 infants) compared S-LMA with surfactant administration via ETT with InSurE. One trial (48 infants) compared S-LMA with surfactant administration via ETT with S-ETT, and two trials (129 infants) compared S-LMA with no surfactant administration. We found no studies comparing S-LMA with LISA techniques or prophylactic or early S-LMA. S-LMA versus surfactant administration via InSurE S-LMA may have little or no effect on the composite outcome of death or BPD at 36 weeks' postmenstrual age (risk ratio (RR) 1.50, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.27 to 8.34, I 2 = not applicable (NA) as 1 study had 0 events; risk difference (RD) 0.02, 95% CI -0.07 to 0.10; I 2 = 0%; 2 studies, 110 infants; low-certainty evidence). There may be a reduction in the need for mechanical ventilation at any time (RR 0.53, 95% CI 0.36 to 0.78; I 2 = 27%; RD -0.14, 95% CI -0.22 to -0.06, I 2 = 89%; number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) 7, 95% CI 5 to 17; 5 studies, 333 infants; low-certainty evidence). However, this was limited to four studies (236 infants) using analgesia or sedation for the InSurE group. There was little or no difference for air leak during first hospitalisation (RR 1.39, 95% CI 0.65 to 2.98; I 2 = 0%; 5 studies, 333 infants (based on 3 studies as 2 studies had 0 events); low-certainty evidence); BPD among survivors to 36 weeks' PMA (RR 1.28, 95% CI 0.47 to 3.52; I 2 = 0%; 4 studies, 264 infants (based on 3 studies as 1 study had 0 events); low-certainty evidence); or death (all causes) during the first hospitalisation (RR 0.28, 95% CI 0.01 to 6.60; I 2 = NA as 2 studies had 0 events; 3 studies, 203 infants; low-certainty evidence). Neurosensory disability was not reported. Intraventricular haemorrhage ( IVH) grades III and IV were reported among the study groups (1 study, 50 infants). S-LMA versus surfactant administration via S-ETT No study reported death or BPD at 36 weeks' PMA. S-LMA may reduce the use of mechanical ventilation at any time compared with S-ETT (RR 0.47, 95% CI 0.31 to 0.71; RD -0.54, 95% CI -0.74 to -0.34; NNTB 2, 95% CI 2 to 3; 1 study, 48 infants; low-certainty evidence). We are very uncertain whether S-LMA compared with S-ETT reduces air leak during first hospitalisation (RR 2.56, 95% CI 0.11 to 59.75), IVH grade III or IV (RR 2.56, 95% CI 0.11 to 59.75) and death (all causes) during the first hospitalisation (RR 0.17, 95% CI 0.01 to 3.37) (1 study, 48 infants; very low-certainty evidence). No study reported BPD to 36 weeks' PMA or neurosensory disability. S-LMA versus no surfactant administration Rescue surfactant could be used in both groups. There may be little or no difference in death or BPD at 36 weeks (RR 1.65, 95% CI 0.85 to 3.22; I 2 = 58%; RD 0.08, 95% CI -0.03 to 0.19; I 2 = 0%; 2 studies, 129 infants; low-certainty evidence). There was probably a reduction in the need for mechanical ventilation at any time with S-LMA compared with nasal continuous positive airway pressure without surfactant (RR 0.57, 95% CI 0.38 to 0.85; I 2 = 0%; RD -0.24, 95% CI -0.40 to -0.08; I 2 = 0%; NNTB 4, 95% CI 3 to 13; 2 studies, 129 infants; moderate-certainty evidence). There was little or no difference in air leak during first hospitalisation (RR 0.65, 95% CI 0.23 to 1.88; I 2 = 0%; 2 studies, 129 infants; low-certainty evidence) or BPD to 36 weeks' PMA (RR 1.65, 95% CI 0.85 to 3.22; I 2 = 58%; 2 studies, 129 infants; low-certainty evidence). There were no events in either group for death during the first hospitalisation (1 study, 103 infants) or IVH grade III and IV (1 study, 103 infants). No study reported neurosensory disability.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

In preterm infants less than 36 weeks' PMA, rescue S-LMA may have little or no effect on the composite outcome of death or BPD at 36 weeks' PMA. However, it may reduce the need for mechanical ventilation at any time. This benefit is limited to trials reporting the use of analgesia or sedation in the InSurE and S-ETT groups. There is low- to very-low certainty evidence for no or little difference in neonatal morbidities and mortality. Long-term outcomes are largely unreported. In preterm infants less than 32 weeks' PMA or less than 1500 g, there are insufficient data to support or refute the use of S-LMA in clinical practice. Adequately powered trials are required to determine the effect of S-LMA for prevention or early treatment of RDS in extremely preterm infants. S-LMA use should be limited to clinical trials in this group of infants.

Surfactant therapy guided by tests for lung maturity in preterm infants at risk of respiratory distress syndrome

BACKGROUND

Administration of various exogenous surfactant preparations has been shown to decrease lung injury and pneumothorax and improve survival in very preterm infants with respiratory distress syndrome (RDS). There is no consensus on the threshold for surfactant administration, to allow timely intervention and avoid over-treatment, also considering the invasiveness of the procedure and its cost. Rapid tests for lung maturity, which include the click test, lamellar body counts and stable microbubble test, might guide the identification of those infants needing surfactant administration.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of surfactant treatment guided by rapid tests for surfactant deficiency in preterm infants at risk for or having RDS. Comparison 1: In preterm infants at risk for RDS, does surfactant treatment guided by rapid tests for surfactant deficiency compared to prophylactic surfactant administration to all high-risk infants minimize the need for surfactant treatment and prevent bronchopulmonary dysplasia and mortality? Comparison 2: In preterm infants who require early respiratory support, does surfactant treatment guided by rapid tests for surfactant deficiency compared to surfactant therapy provided to infants with RDS diagnosed on clinical and radiologic criteria minimize the need for surfactant treatment and prevent bronchopulmonary dysplasia and mortality?

SEARCH METHODS

We searched in October 2022 CENTRAL, PubMed, Embase and three additional trial registries. We also screened the reference lists of included studies and related systematic reviews for studies not identified by the database searches.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs evaluating rapid tests after birth for surfactant deficiency in infants at high risk of RDS or requiring respiratory support. We specified two comparisons: 1)surfactant treatment guided by rapid tests for surfactant deficiency versus prophylactic surfactant administration to all high-risk infants in extremely preterm (less than 28 weeks' gestation) and very preterm (28 to 32 weeks' gestation); 2)surfactant treatment guided by rapid tests for surfactant deficiency versus surfactant therapy provided to preterm infants (less than 37 weeks' gestation) with RDS diagnosed on clinical and radiologic criteria.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard Cochrane methods. We used the fixed-effect model with risk ratio (RR) and risk difference (RD), with their 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for dichotomous data. Our primary outcomes were: neonatal mortality, mortality prior to hospital discharge, bronchopulmonary dysplasia and the composite outcome bronchopulmonary dysplasia or mortality. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of evidence.

MAIN RESULTS

We included three RCTs enrolling 562 newborn infants in this review. No studies compared surfactant treatment guided by rapid tests for surfactant deficiency versus prophylactic surfactant administration to all high-risk infants. Comparing surfactant therapy guided by rapid tests for surfactant deficiency versus surfactant therapy provided to infants with RDS diagnosed on clinical and radiologic criteria. No studies reported neonatal mortality. Compared with surfactant therapy provided to infants with RDS diagnosed on clinical and radiologic criteria, the evidence is very uncertain about the effect of surfactant treatment guided by rapid tests for surfactant deficiency on mortality prior to hospital discharge: RR 1.25, 95% CI 0.65 to 2.41, RD 0.01, 95% CI -0.03 to 0.05, 562 participants, 3 studies; I² for RR and RD = 75% and 43%, respectively; very low-certainty evidence. Surfactant treatment guided by rapid tests for surfactant deficiency may result in little to no difference in bronchopulmonary dysplasia: RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.61 to 1.32, RD -0.02, 95% CI -0.08 to 0.04, 562 participants, 3 studies; I² for RR and RD = 0%; low-certainty evidence. No studies reported the composite outcome bronchopulmonary dysplasia or mortality. Surfactant treatment guided by rapid tests for surfactant deficiency may result in little to no difference in surfactant utilization (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.11, RD -0.02, 95% CI -0.10 to 0.06, 562 participants, 3 studies, I² for RR and RD = 63% and 65%, respectively, low-certainty evidence), and any pneumothorax (RR 0.53, 95% CI 0.15 to 1.92, RD -0.01, 95% CI -0.04 to 0.01, 506 participants, 2 studies, I² for RR and RD = 0%, low-certainty evidence) compared with surfactant therapy provided to infants with RDS diagnosed on clinical and radiologic criteria. No studies reported moderate to severe neurodevelopmental impairment. We identified two large ongoing RCTs.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

No studies compared surfactant treatment guided by rapid tests for surfactant deficiency to prophylactic surfactant administration to all high-risk infants. Low to very low-certainty evidence from three studies is available on surfactant therapy guided by rapid tests for surfactant deficiency versus surfactant therapy provided to infants with RDS diagnosed on clinical and radiologic criteria. No studies reported neonatal mortality, the composite outcome 'bronchopulmonary dysplasia or mortality', or neurodevelopmental outcomes. Compared with surfactant therapy provided to infants with RDS diagnosed on clinical and radiologic criteria, the evidence is very uncertain about the effect of surfactant treatment guided by rapid tests for surfactant deficiency on mortality prior to hospital discharge. Surfactant treatment guided by rapid tests for surfactant deficiency may result in little to no difference in bronchopulmonary dysplasia, surfactant utilization and any pneumothorax. The findings of the two large ongoing trials identified in this review are likely to have an important impact on establishing the effects of surfactant treatment guided by rapid tests for surfactant deficiency in preterm infants.

Superoxide dismutase for bronchopulmonary dysplasia in preterm infants

BACKGROUND

Free oxygen radicals have been implicated in the pathogenesis of bronchopulmonary dysplasia (BPD) in preterm infants. Superoxide dismutase (SOD) is a naturally occurring enzyme which provides a defense against such oxidant injury. Providing supplementary SOD has been tested in clinical trials to prevent BPD in preterm infants.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the efficacy and safety of SOD in the prevention and treatment of BPD on mortality and other complications of prematurity in infants at risk for, or having BPD.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, PubMed, Embase, and three trials registers on 22 September 2022 together with reference checking, citation searching and contact with study authors to identify additional studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomized, quasi-randomized and cluster-randomized controlled trials (RCTs) where the participants were preterm infants who had developed, or were at risk of developing BPD, and who were randomly allocated to receive either SOD (in any form, by any route, any dose, anytime) or placebo, or no treatment.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard Cochrane methods. Our primary outcomes were BPD defined as an oxygen requirement at 28 days, BPD defined as oxygen at 36 weeks' postmenstrual age, neonatal mortality, mortality prior to discharge, and BPD or death at 36 weeks' postmenstrual age. We reported risk ratio (RR) and risk difference (RD) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for the dichotomous outcomes. We used GRADE to assess certainty of evidence for each outcome.

MAIN RESULTS

We included three RCTs (380 infants) on SOD administration in preterm infants at risk for BPD, and no studies in preterm infants with evolving BPD / early respiratory insufficiency. The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of SOD on BPD defined as an oxygen requirement at 28 days (RR 1.09, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.26; RD 0.06, 95% CI -0.05 to 0.16, 1 study, 302 infants; I2 for RR and RD not applicable), BPD defined as oxygen at 36 weeks' postmenstrual age (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.72 to 1.29; RD -0.01, 95% CI -0.11 to 0.09, 2 studies, 335 infants; I2 for RR and RD = 0%), neonatal mortality (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.57 to 1.68; RD -0.00, 95% CI -0.08 to 0.07, 2 studies, 335 infants; I2 for RR and RD = 0%), and mortality prior to discharge (RR 1.20, 95% CI 0.53 to 2.71; RD 0.04, 95% CI -0.14 to 0.23, 2 studies, 78 infants; I2 for RR and RD = 0%). No studies reported BPD or death at 36 weeks' postmenstrual age. The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of SOD on retinopathy of prematurity any stage (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.15; RD -0.03, 95% CI -0.15 to 0.08, 2 studies, 335 infants; I2for RR = 0%, I2 for RD = 8%), and severe retinopathy of prematurity (ROP) (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.57 to 1.65; RD -0.01, 95% CI -0.10 to 0.09, 1 study, 244 infants; I2 for RR and RD not applicable). No studies reported moderate to severe neurodevelopmental outcome at 18 to 24 months. Certainty of evidence was very low for all outcomes. We identified no ongoing trials.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of SOD on BPD defined as an oxygen requirement at 28 days, BPD defined as oxygen at 36 weeks' postmenstrual age, neonatal mortality and mortality prior to discharge compared to placebo. No studies reported BPD or death at 36 weeks' postmenstrual age and need for supplemental oxygen. The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of SOD on retinopathy of prematurity any stage and severe retinopathy of prematurity. No studies reported moderate to severe neurodevelopmental outcome at 18 to 24 months. The effects of SOD in preterm infants has not been reported in any trial in the last few decades, considering that the most recent trial on SOD in preterm infants was conducted in 1997/1998, and no new studies are ongoing. In the light of the limited available evidence, new data from preclinical and observational studies are needed to justify the conduction of new RCTs. Observational studies might report how SOD is administered, including indication, dose and association with relevant outcomes such as mortality, BPD and long-term neurodevelopment.

Caffeine versus other methylxanthines for the prevention and treatment of apnea in preterm infants

BACKGROUND

Methylxanthines, including caffeine, theophylline, and aminophylline, work as stimulants of the respiratory drive, and decrease apnea of prematurity, a developmental disorder common in preterm infants. In particular, caffeine has been reported to improve important clinical outcomes, including bronchopulmonary dysplasia (BPD) and neurodevelopmental disability. However, there is uncertainty regarding the efficacy of caffeine compared to other methylxanthines.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of caffeine compared to aminophylline or theophylline in preterm infants at risk of apnea, with apnea, or in the peri-extubation phase.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, Epistemonikos, the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP), and clinicaltrials.gov in February 2023. We also checked the reference lists of relevant articles to identify additional studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Studies: randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs Participants: infants born before 34 weeks of gestation for prevention and extubation trials, and infants born before 37 weeks of gestation for treatment trials Intervention and comparison: caffeine versus theophylline or caffeine versus aminophylline. We included all doses and duration of treatment.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. We evaluated treatment effects using a fixed-effect model with risk ratio (RR), risk difference (RD), and 95% confidence intervals (CI) for categorical data, and mean, standard deviation, and mean difference for continuous data. We used the GRADE approach to evaluate the certainty of evidence.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 22 trials enrolling 1776 preterm infants. The indication for treatment was prevention of apnea in three studies, treatment of apnea in 13 studies, and extubation management in three studies. In three studies, there were multiple indications for treatment, and in one study, the indication for treatment was unclear. In 19 included studies, the infants had a mean gestational age between 28 and 32 weeks and a mean birth weight between 1000 g and 1500 g. One study's participants had a mean gestational age of more than 32 weeks, and two studies had participants with a mean birth weight of 1500 g or more. Caffeine administrated for any indication may result in little to no difference in all-cause mortality prior to hospital discharge compared to other methylxanthines (RR 1.12, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.84; RD 0.02, 95% CI -0.05 to 0.08; 2 studies, 396 infants; low-certainty evidence). Only one study enrolling 79 infants reported components of the outcome moderate to severe neurodevelopmental disability at 18 to 26 months. The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of caffeine on cognitive developmental delay compared to other methylxanthines (RR 0.17, 95% CI 0.02 to 1.37; RD -0.12, 95% CI -0.24 to 0.01; 1 study, 79 infants; very low-certainty evidence). The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of caffeine on language developmental delay compared to other methylxanthines (RR 0.76, 95% CI 0.37 to 1.58; RD -0.07, 95% CI -0.27 to 0.12; 1 study, 79 infants; very low-certainty evidence). The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of caffeine on motor developmental delay compared to other methylxanthines (RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.13 to 1.96; RD -0.07, 95% CI -0.21 to 0.07; 1 study, 79 infants; very low-certainty evidence). The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of caffeine on visual and hearing impairment compared to other methylxanthines. At 24 months of age, visual impairment was seen in 8 out of 11 infants and 10 out of 11 infants in the caffeine and other methylxanthines groups, respectively. Hearing impairment was seen in 2 out of 5 infants and 1 out of 1 infant in the caffeine and other methylxanthines groups, respectively. No studies reported the outcomes cerebral palsy, gross motor disability, and mental development. Compared to other methylxanthines, caffeine may result in little to no difference in BPD/chronic lung disease, defined as 28 days of oxygen exposure at 36 weeks' postmenstrual age (RR 1.40, 95% CI 0.92 to 2.11; RD 0.04, 95% CI -0.01 to 0.09; 3 studies, 481 infants; low-certainty evidence). The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of caffeine on side effects (tachycardia, agitation, or feed intolerance) leading to a reduction in dose or withholding of methylxanthines compared to other methylxanthines (RR 0.17, 95% CI 0.02 to 1.32; RD -0.29, 95% CI -0.57 to -0.02; 1 study, 30 infants; very low-certainty evidence). Caffeine may result in little to no difference in duration of hospital stay compared to other methylxanthines (median (interquartile range): caffeine 43 days (27.5 to 61.5); other methylxanthines 39 days (28 to 55)). No studies reported the outcome seizures.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Although caffeine has been shown to improve important clinical outcomes, in the few studies that compared caffeine to other methylxanthines, there might be little to no difference in mortality, bronchopulmonary dysplasia, and duration of hospital stay. The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of caffeine compared to other methylxanthines on long-term development and side effects. Although caffeine or other methylxanthines are widely used in preterm infants, there is little direct evidence to support the choice of which methylxanthine to use. More research is needed, especially on extremely preterm infants born before 28 weeks of gestation. Data from four ongoing studies might provide more evidence on the effects of caffeine or other methylxanthines.

Nasal high flow therapy for primary respiratory support in preterm infants

BACKGROUND

Nasal high flow (nHF) therapy provides heated, humidified air and oxygen via two small nasal prongs, at gas flows of more than 1 litre/minute (L/min), typically 2 L/min to 8 L/min. nHF is commonly used for non-invasive respiratory support in preterm neonates. It may be used in this population for primary respiratory support (avoiding, or prior to the use of mechanical ventilation via an endotracheal tube) for prophylaxis or treatment of respiratory distress syndrome (RDS). This is an update of a review first published in 2011 and updated in 2016.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the benefits and harms of nHF for primary respiratory support in preterm infants compared to other forms of non-invasive respiratory support.

SEARCH METHODS

We used standard, extensive Cochrane search methods. The latest search date March 2022.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised or quasi-randomised trials comparing nHF with other forms of non-invasive respiratory support for preterm infants born less than 37 weeks' gestation with respiratory distress soon after birth.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard Cochrane Neonatal methods. Our primary outcomes were 1. death (before hospital discharge) or bronchopulmonary dysplasia (BPD), 2. death (before hospital discharge), 3. BPD, 4. treatment failure within 72 hours of trial entry and 5. mechanical ventilation via an endotracheal tube within 72 hours of trial entry. Our secondary outcomes were 6. respiratory support, 7. complications and 8. neurosensory outcomes. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of evidence.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 13 studies (2540 infants) in this updated review. There are nine studies awaiting classification and 13 ongoing studies. The included studies differed in the comparator treatment (continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) or nasal intermittent positive pressure ventilation (NIPPV)), the devices for delivering nHF and the gas flows used. Some studies allowed the use of 'rescue' CPAP in the event of nHF treatment failure, prior to any mechanical ventilation, and some allowed surfactant administration via the INSURE (INtubation, SURfactant, Extubation) technique without this being deemed treatment failure. The studies included very few extremely preterm infants less than 28 weeks' gestation. Several studies had unclear or high risk of bias in one or more domains. Nasal high flow compared with continuous positive airway pressure for primary respiratory support in preterm infants Eleven studies compared nHF with CPAP for primary respiratory support in preterm infants. When compared with CPAP, nHF may result in little to no difference in the combined outcome of death or BPD (risk ratio (RR) 1.09, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.74 to 1.60; risk difference (RD) 0, 95% CI -0.02 to 0.02; 7 studies, 1830 infants; low-certainty evidence). Compared with CPAP, nHF may result in little to no difference in the risk of death (RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.44 to 1.39; 9 studies, 2009 infants; low-certainty evidence), or BPD (RR 1.14, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.76; 8 studies, 1917 infants; low-certainty evidence). nHF likely results in an increase in treatment failure within 72 hours of trial entry (RR 1.70, 95% CI 1.41 to 2.06; RD 0.09, 95% CI 0.06 to 0.12; number needed to treat for an additional harmful outcome (NNTH) 11, 95% CI 8 to 17; 9 studies, 2042 infants; moderate-certainty evidence). However, nHF likely does not increase the rate of mechanical ventilation (RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.31; 9 studies, 2042 infants; moderate-certainty evidence). nHF likely results in a reduction in pneumothorax (RR 0.66, 95% CI 0.40 to 1.08; 10 studies, 2094 infants; moderate-certainty evidence) and nasal trauma (RR 0.49, 95% CI 0.36 to 0.68; RD -0.06, 95% CI -0.09 to -0.04; 7 studies, 1595 infants; moderate-certainty evidence). Nasal high flow compared with nasal intermittent positive pressure ventilation for primary respiratory support in preterm infants Four studies compared nHF with NIPPV for primary respiratory support in preterm infants. When compared with NIPPV, nHF may result in little to no difference in the combined outcome of death or BPD, but the evidence is very uncertain (RR 0.64, 95% CI 0.30 to 1.37; RD -0.05, 95% CI -0.14 to 0.04; 2 studies, 182 infants; very low-certainty evidence). nHF may result in little to no difference in the risk of death (RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.36 to 1.69; RD -0.02, 95% CI -0.10 to 0.05; 3 studies, 254 infants; low-certainty evidence). nHF likely results in little to no difference in the incidence of treatment failure within 72 hours of trial entry compared with NIPPV (RR 1.27, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.79; 4 studies, 343 infants; moderate-certainty evidence), or mechanical ventilation within 72 hours of trial entry (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.62 to 1.33; 4 studies, 343 infants; moderate-certainty evidence). nHF likely results in a reduction in nasal trauma, compared with NIPPV (RR 0.21, 95% CI 0.09 to 0.47; RD -0.17, 95% CI -0.24 to -0.10; 3 studies, 272 infants; moderate-certainty evidence). nHF likely results in little to no difference in the rate of pneumothorax (RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.40 to 1.53; 4 studies, 344 infants; moderate-certainty evidence). Nasal high flow compared with ambient oxygen We found no studies examining this comparison. Nasal high flow compared with low flow nasal cannulae We found no studies examining this comparison.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The use of nHF for primary respiratory support in preterm infants of 28 weeks' gestation or greater may result in little to no difference in death or BPD, compared with CPAP or NIPPV. nHF likely results in an increase in treatment failure within 72 hours of trial entry compared with CPAP; however, it likely does not increase the rate of mechanical ventilation. Compared with CPAP, nHF use likely results in less nasal trauma and likely a reduction in pneumothorax. As few extremely preterm infants less than 28 weeks' gestation were enrolled in the included trials, evidence is lacking for the use of nHF for primary respiratory support in this population.

Caffeine dosing regimens in preterm infants with or at risk for apnea of prematurity

BACKGROUND

Very preterm infants often require respiratory support and are therefore exposed to an increased risk of bronchopulmonary dysplasia (chronic lung disease) and later neurodevelopmental disability. Caffeine is widely used to prevent and treat apnea (temporal cessation of breathing) associated with prematurity and facilitate extubation. Though widely recognized dosage regimes have been used for decades, higher doses have been suggested to further improve neonatal outcomes. However, observational studies suggest that higher doses may be associated with harm.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the effects of higher versus standard doses of caffeine on mortality and major neurodevelopmental disability in preterm infants with (or at risk of) apnea, or peri-extubation.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP), and clinicaltrials.gov in May 2022. The reference lists of relevant articles were also checked to identify additional studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomized (RCTs), quasi-RCTs and cluster-RCTs, comparing high-dose to standard-dose strategies in preterm infants. High-dose strategies were defined as a high-loading dose (more than 20 mg of caffeine citrate/kg) or a high-maintenance dose (more than 10 mg of caffeine citrate/kg/day). Standard-dose strategies were defined as a standard-loading dose (20 mg or less of caffeine citrate/kg) or a standard-maintenance dose (10 mg or less of caffeine citrate/kg/day). We specified three additional comparisons according to the indication for commencing caffeine: 1) prevention trials, i.e. preterm infants born at less than 34 weeks' gestation, who are at risk for apnea; 2) treatment trials, i.e. preterm infants born at less than 37 weeks' gestation, with signs of apnea; 3) extubation trials: preterm infants born at less than 34 weeks' gestation, prior to planned extubation.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. We evaluated treatment effects using a fixed-effect model with risk ratio (RR) for categorical data and mean, standard deviation (SD), and mean difference (MD) for continuous data.  MAIN RESULTS: We included seven trials enrolling 894 very preterm infants (reported in Comparison 1, i.e. any indication). Two studies included infants for apnea prevention (Comparison 2), four studies for apnea treatment (Comparison 3) and two for extubation management (Comparison 4); in one study, indication for caffeine administration was both apnea treatment and extubation management (reported in Comparison 1, Comparison 3 and Comparison 4). In the high-dose groups, loading and maintenance caffeine doses ranged from 30 mg/kg to 80 mg/kg, and 12 mg/kg to 30 mg/kg, respectively; in the standard-dose groups, loading and maintenance caffeine doses ranged from 6 mg/kg to 25 mg/kg, and 3 mg/kg to 10 mg/kg, respectively. Two studies had three study groups: infants were randomized in three different doses (two of them matched our definition of high dose and one matched our definition of standard dose); high-dose caffeine and standard-dose caffeine were compared to theophylline administration (the latter is included in a separate review). Six of the seven included studies compared high-loading and high-maintenance dose to standard-loading and standard-maintenance dose, whereas in one study standard-loading dose and high-maintenance dose was compared to standard-loading dose and standard-maintenance dose. High-dose caffeine strategies (administration for any indication) may have little or no effect on mortality prior to hospital discharge (risk ratio (RR) 0.86, 95% confidence of interval (CI) 0.53 to 1.38; risk difference (RD) -0.01, 95% CI -0.05 to 0.03; I² for RR and RD = 0%; 5 studies, 723 participants; low-certainty evidence). Only one study enrolling 74 infants reported major neurodevelopmental disability in children aged three to five years (RR 0.79, 95% CI 0.51 to 1.24; RD -0.15, 95% CI -0.42 to 0.13; 46 participants; very low-certainty evidence). No studies reported the outcome mortality or major neurodevelopmental disability in children aged 18 to 24 months and 3 to 5 years. Five studies reported bronchopulmonary dysplasia at 36 weeks' postmenstrual age (RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.60 to 0.94; RD -0.08, 95% CI -0.15 to -0.02; number needed to benefit (NNTB) = 13; I² for RR and RD = 0%; 723 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). High-dose caffeine strategies may have little or no effect on side effects (RR 1.66, 95% CI 0.86 to 3.23; RD 0.03, 95% CI -0.01 to 0.07; I² for RR and RD = 0%; 5 studies, 593 participants; low-certainty evidence). The evidence is very uncertain for duration of hospital stay (data reported in three studies could not be pooled in meta-analysis because outcomes were expressed as medians and interquartile ranges) and seizures (RR 1.42, 95% CI 0.79 to 2.53; RD 0.14, 95% CI -0.09 to 0.36; 1 study, 74 participants; very low-certainty evidence). We identified three ongoing trials conducted in China, Egypt, and New Zealand.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

High-dose caffeine strategies in preterm infants may have little or no effect on reducing mortality prior to hospital discharge or side effects. We are very uncertain whether high-dose caffeine strategies improves major neurodevelopmental disability, duration of hospital stay or seizures. No studies reported the outcome mortality or major neurodevelopmental disability in children aged 18 to 24 months and 3 to 5 years. High-dose caffeine strategies probably reduce the rate of bronchopulmonary dysplasia. Recently completed and future trials should report long-term neurodevelopmental outcome of children exposed to different caffeine dosing strategies in the neonatal period. Data from extremely preterm infants are needed, as this population is exposed to the highest risk for mortality and morbidity. However, caution is required when administering high doses in the first hours of life, when the risk for intracranial bleeding is highest. Observational studies might provide useful information regarding potential harms of the highest doses.

Inositol in preterm infants at risk for or having respiratory distress syndrome

BACKGROUND

Inositol is an essential nutrient required by human cells in culture for growth and survival. Inositol promotes maturation of several components of surfactant and may play a critical role in fetal and early neonatal life. A drop in inositol levels in infants with respiratory distress syndrome (RDS) can be a sign that their illness will be severe.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness and safety of supplementary inositol in preterm infants with or without respiratory distress syndrome (RDS) in reducing adverse neonatal outcomes including: death (neonatal and infant deaths), bronchopulmonary dysplasia (BPD), retinopathy of prematurity (ROP), intraventricular haemorrhage (IVH), periventricular leukomalacia (PVL), necrotizing enterocolitis (NEC) and sepsis.

SEARCH METHODS

We used the standard search strategy of Cochrane Neonatal to search the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL 2018, Issue 11), MEDLINE via PubMed (1966 to 5 November 2018), Embase (1980 to 5 November 2018), and CINAHL (1982 to 5 November 2018). We searched clinical trial databases, conference proceedings, and the reference lists of retrieved articles for randomised controlled trials (RCT) and quasi-randomised trials.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included all randomised controlled trials of inositol supplementation of preterm infants compared with a control group that received a placebo or no intervention. Outcomes included neonatal death, infant death, bronchopulmonary dysplasia (BPD), retinopathy of prematurity (ROP), intraventricular haemorrhage (IVH), necrotizing enterocolitis (NEC) and sepsis.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

The three review authors independently abstracted data on neonatal outcomes and resolved any disagreements through discussion and consensus. Outcomes were reported as typical risk ratio (RR), risk difference (RD) and number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) or number needed to treat for an additional harmful outcome (NNTH). We used the GRADE approach to assess the quality of evidence.

MAIN RESULTS

Six published randomised controlled trials were identified, with a total of 1177 infants. Study quality varied for the comparison 'Inositol supplementation to preterm infants (repeat doses in any amount and any duration of treatment) versus control' and interim analyses had occurred in several trials for the outcomes of interest. In this comparison, neonatal death was found to be significantly reduced (typical RR 0.53, 95% CI 0.31 to 0.91; typical RD -0.09, 95% CI -0.16 to -0.01; NNTB 11, 95% CI 6 to 100; 3 trials, 355 neonates). Infant deaths were not reduced (typical RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.71 to 1.13; typical RD -0.02, 95% CI -0.07 to 0.02; 5 trials, 1115 infants) (low-quality evidence). ROP stage 2 or higher or stage 3 or higher was not significantly reduced (typical RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.06; typical RD -0.04, 95% CI -0.10 to 0.02; 3 trials, 810 infants) (moderate-quality evidence). There were no significant findings for ROP (any stage), NEC (suspected or proven), sepsis, IVH grade greater than II (moderate-quality evidence). For the comparison 'Inositol supplementation IV initially followed by enteral administration (repeat doses of 80 mg/kg/day) in preterm infants born at less than 30 weeks' postmenstrual age (PMA) compared to placebo for preterm infants at risk for or having respiratory distress syndrome' the results from two studies of high quality were included (N = 760 neonates). Recruitment to the larger study (N = 638) was terminated because of a higher rate of deaths in the inositol group. We did not downgrade the quality of the study. The meta-analyses of the outcomes of 'Type 1 ROP or death before determination of ROP outcome using the adjudicated ROP outcome', 'Type 1 ROP including adjudicated ROP outcome', 'All-cause mortality (outcome collected through first event: death, hospital discharge, hospital transfer, or 120 days after birth)' and 'Severe IVH (grade 3 or 4)' did not show significant findings (moderate-quality evidence). There were no significant findings for the outcomes 'BPD or death by it prior to 37 weeks' postmenstrual age (outcomes collected through first event: death, hospital discharge, hospital transfer, or 120 days after birth)', 'Late onset sepsis (> 72 hours of age)', and 'Suspected or proven NEC' (high-quality evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Based on the evidence from randomised controlled trials to date, inositol supplementation does not result in important reductions in the rates of infant deaths, ROP stage 3 or higher, type 1 ROP, IVH grades 3 or 4, BPD, NEC, or sepsis. These conclusions are based mainly on two recent randomised controlled trials in neonates less than 30 weeks' postmenstrual age (N = 760), the most vulnerable population. Currently inositol supplementation should not be routinely instituted as part of the nutritional management of preterm infants with or without RDS. It is important that infants who have been enrolled in the trials included in this review are followed to assess any effects of inositol supplementation on long-term outcomes in childhood. We do not recommend any additional trials in neonates.

Neurally adjusted ventilatory assist compared to other forms of triggered ventilation for neonatal respiratory support

BACKGROUND

Effective synchronisation of infant respiratory effort with mechanical ventilation may allow adequate gas exchange to occur at lower peak airway pressures, potentially reducing barotrauma and volutrauma and development of air leaks and bronchopulmonary dysplasia. During neurally adjusted ventilatory assist ventilation (NAVA), respiratory support is initiated upon detection of an electrical signal from the diaphragm muscle, and pressure is provided in proportion to and synchronous with electrical activity of the diaphragm (EADi). Compared to other modes of triggered ventilation, this may provide advantages in improving synchrony.

OBJECTIVES

Primary• To determine whether NAVA, when used as a primary or rescue mode of ventilation, results in reduced rates of bronchopulmonary dysplasia (BPD) or death among term and preterm newborn infants compared to other forms of triggered ventilation• To assess the safety of NAVA by determining whether it leads to greater risk of intraventricular haemorrhage (IVH), periventricular leukomalacia, or air leaks when compared to other forms of triggered ventilation Secondary• To determine whether benefits of NAVA differ by gestational age (term or preterm)• To determine whether outcomes of cross-over trials performed during the first two weeks of life include peak pressure requirements, episodes of hypocarbia or hypercarbia, oxygenation index, and the work of breathing SEARCH METHODS: We performed searches of the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) in the Cohrane Library; MEDLINE via Ovid SP (January 1966 to March 2017); Embase via Ovid SP (January 1980 to March 2017); the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) via EBSCO host (1982 to March 2017); and the Web of Science (1985 to 2017). We searched abstracts from annual meetings of the Pediatric Academic Societies (PAS) (2000 to 2016); meetings of the European Society of Pediatric Research (published in Pediatric Research); and meetings of the Perinatal Society of Australia and New Zealand (PSANZ) (2005 to 2016). We also searched clinical trials databases to March 2017.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised and quasi-randomised clinical trials including cross-over trials comparing NAVA with other modes of triggered ventilation (assist control ventilation (ACV),synchronous intermittent mandatory ventilation plus pressure support (SIMV ± PS), pressure support ventilation (PSV), or proportional assist ventilation (PAV)) used in neonates.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Primary outcomes of interest from randomised controlled trials were all-cause mortality, bronchopulmonary dysplasia (BPD; defined as oxygen requirement at 28 days), and a combined outcome of all-cause mortality or BPD. Secondary outcomes were duration of mechanical ventilation, incidence of air leak, incidence of IVH or periventricular leukomalacia, and survival with an oxygen requirement at 36 weeks' postmenstrual age.Outcomes of interest from cross-over trials were maximum fraction of inspired oxygen, mean peak inspiratory pressure, episodes of hypocarbia, and episodes of hypercarbia measured across the time period of each arm of the cross-over. We planned to assess work of breathing; oxygenation index, and thoraco-abdominal asynchrony at the end of the time period of each arm of the cross-over study.

MAIN RESULTS

We included one randomised controlled study comparing NAVA versus patient-triggered time-cycled pressure-limited ventilation. This study found no significant difference in duration of mechanical ventilation, nor in rates of BPD, pneumothorax, or IVH.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Risks and benefits of NAVA compared to other forms of ventilation for neonates are uncertain. Well-designed trials are required to evaluate this new form of triggered ventilation.

Pentoxifylline for the prevention of bronchopulmonary dysplasia in preterm infants

BACKGROUND

Bronchopulmonary dysplasia (BPD) is a common complication in preterm infants. BPD is associated with poor long-term respiratory and neurodevelopmental outcome and increased mortality. The prophylactic use of agents that modulate inflammation such as pentoxifylline, a synthetic methylxanthine and phosphodiesterase inhibitor, may reduce the incidence of BPD.

OBJECTIVES

The primary objective of this review was to determine the effect of pentoxifylline on the incidence of BPD, death prior to 36 weeks postmenstrual age (PMA), and BPD or death prior to 36 weeks PMA in preterm neonates.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Neonatal Review Group Specialized Register, CENTRAL (The Cochrane Library Issue 9, 2012), EMBASE (January 1974 to September 2012), PubMed (January 1966 to September 2012), and CINAHL (January 1982 to September 2012) in September 2012. We checked references and cross-references from identified studies. We handsearched abstracts from the proceedings of the Pediatric Academic Societies Meetings (from January 1990 to September 2012). We placed no restrictions on language.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised or quasi-randomised clinical trials of systemic or nebulised pentoxifylline in preterm neonates less than 32 weeks gestational age or less than 1500 g birth weight, reporting on at least one outcome of interest, were eligible for inclusion in the review.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used the standard methods of the Cochrane Neonatal Review Group and The Cochrane Collaboration. Two review authors (SMS and SK) independently searched the literature as described above and selected studies. Any disagreements were resolved by discussion involving all review authors.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified one randomised clinical trial eligible for inclusion in this review. This study compared the use of nebulised pentoxifylline versus placebo for prevention of BPD in 100 preterm infants and was at high risk of bias due to lack of blinding of intervention and outcome assessors, and incomplete outcome data. There was no statistically significant effect of nebulised pentoxifylline versus placebo on individual outcomes of BPD at 36 weeks PMA or on death prior to 36 weeks PMA. There was no significant effect of nebulised pentoxifylline on intraventricular haemorrhage, periventricular leukomalacia, sepsis, or patent ductus arteriosus (PDA) requiring ligation. The study did not report any of the other secondary outcomes considered for this review. Reporting of adverse events was very limited and did not allow for reliable judgement on the incidence of such events. No long-term outcomes were reported.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is insufficient evidence to determine the safety and efficacy of pentoxifylline for prevention of BPD in preterm neonates. We encourage researchers to conduct clinical trials to confirm or refute the role of pentoxifylline for prevention of BPD in preterm neonates. These trials should report on clinically important outcomes and, ideally, on long-term neurodevelopmental outcome.