4.6 Article

Acute and sustained effects of aerosolized vs. bolus surfactant therapy in premature lambs with respiratory distress syndrome

Journal

PEDIATRIC RESEARCH
Volume 73, Issue 5, Pages 639-646

Publisher

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/pr.2013.24

Keywords

-

Categories

Funding

  1. Spanish Carlos III Health Institute [FIS 10/943, RD08/072]
  2. Government of the Basque Country [2007111046]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

BACKGROUND: Surfactant (SF) instillation may produce acute deleterious effects on gas exchange and both systemic and cerebral hemodynamics. Our aim was to compare the effects of aerosolized SF (SF-aero) with those of bolus SF (SF-bolus) administration on gas exchange, lung mechanics, and cardiovascular function in premature lambs with respiratory distress syndrome (RDS). METHODS: Fourteen preterm lambs (85% gestation) were randomly assigned to receive SF-aero or SF-bolus. Oxygenation index (01), PaCO2, cardiovascular parameters, carotid blood flow (CBF), lung compliance (mean dynamic compliance), and tidal volume (V-T) were measured every 30 min for 6h. Biochemical and histological analyses were performed. RESULTS: After delivery, lambs developed severe RDS (inspiratory fraction of oxygen: 1; pH <7.15; PaCO2 > 80 mm Hg; PaO2 < 30 mm Hg, mean dynamic compliance < 0.08 ml/cm H2O/kg). By 60 min after treatment, both groups showed an improvement in 01, PaCO2, mean dynamic compliance,and V-T that was maintained until the end of the experiment. PaCO2 and CBF increased significantly in the SF-bolus group during the first 15-30 min, without concomitant changes in cardiovascular parameters, whereas in the SF-aero group, PaCO2 and CBF decreased gradually. SF-aero induced less alveolar hemorrhage and inflammation. CONCLUSION: SF-aero produced improvements in gas exchange and lung mechanics similar to those produced by bolus administration but with less lung injury and fewer cerebral hemodynamic changes.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available