Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorPaul, S.
dc.contributor.authorRao, S.
dc.contributor.authorKohan, R.
dc.contributor.authorMcMichael, J.
dc.contributor.authorFrench, N.
dc.contributor.authorZhang, Guicheng
dc.contributor.authorSimmer, K.
dc.date.accessioned2017-01-30T11:45:23Z
dc.date.available2017-01-30T11:45:23Z
dc.date.created2013-12-02T20:00:44Z
dc.date.issued2013
dc.identifier.citationPaul, Saritha and Rao, Shripada and Kohan, Rolland and McMichael, Judy and French, Noel and Zhang, Guicheng and Simmer, Karen. 2013. Poractant Alfa Versus Beractant for Respiratory Distress Syndrome in Preterm Infants: a Retrospective Cohort Study. Journal of Paediatrics and Child Health. 49: pp. 839-844.
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/20.500.11937/14685
dc.identifier.doi10.1111/jpc.12300
dc.description.abstract

Aim: Poractant alfa and beractant are the commonly used animal derived surfactants in preterm infants with respiratory distress syndrome. Between 2005 and 2007, poractant alfa and beractant were alternated every month in our neonatal intensive care unit for 27 months. The aim of this study was to compare the outcomes of preterm infants who received poractant alfa versus beractant. Method: Single-centre, retrospective cohort study of inborn preterm infants <32 weeks gestation (23–31+6). Results: Six hundred sixty-four preterm infants (<32 weeks) were born during the study period, of which 415 received surfactant (poractant alfa: 214; beractant: 201). Infants in the poractant alfa group were 2.8 days younger than beractant (27.0 2.3 vs. 27.4 2.3 weeks; P = 0.03). All other baseline characters including Clinical Risk Index for Babies II scores were similar for both groups. No significant differences were found for the following outcomes: death or chronic lung disease (78/212 vs. 59/200; P = 0.28); death (24/214 vs. 15/201, P = 0.24); moderate to severe chronic lung disease (63/212 vs. 46/200; P = 0.45) and moderate to severe disability (20/163 vs. 19/151, P = 0.98) between poractant alfa and beractant, respectively. Conclusions: The results of our study do not support the need for preferential use of poractant alfa or beractant.

dc.publisherBlackwell Scientific Publications
dc.subjectChronic lung disease
dc.subjectpulmonary surfactant
dc.subjectpremature infant
dc.subjectrespiratory distress syndrome
dc.titlePoractant Alfa Versus Beractant for Respiratory Distress Syndrome in Preterm Infants: a Retrospective Cohort Study
dc.typeJournal Article
dcterms.source.volume49
dcterms.source.startPage839
dcterms.source.endPage844
dcterms.source.issn10344810
dcterms.source.titleJournal of Paediatrics and Child Health
curtin.department
curtin.accessStatusFulltext not available


Files in this item

Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record