Early caffeine and LISA administration may lower frequency of intubation in newborn with RDS

Written By :  Dr.Niharika Harsha B
Medically Reviewed By :  Dr. Kamal Kant Kohli
Published On 2023-12-01 13:30 GMT   |   Update On 2023-12-02 05:40 GMT
Advertisement

A groundbreaking randomized trial has brought hope for preterm neonates facing respiratory distress syndrome (RDS) by exploring an innovative strategy to reduce the need for endotracheal intubation in their crucial first 72 hours of life. They found that early administration of caffeine along with less invasive surfactant administration significantly reduces the need for endotracheal intubation in the first 72 hours of life for preterm neonates with respiratory distress syndrome. 

Advertisement

The study results were published in the New England Journal of Medicine: Evidence. 

Optimal management of respiratory distress syndrome (RDS) in preterm neonates involves early CPAP initiation and titrated oxygen. Less invasive surfactant administration (LISA) offers a promising alternative to traditional intubation, aiming to reduce associated risks while ensuring effective respiratory support. Hence, researchers from California conducted a trial to investigate whether early administration of caffeine and LISA would decrease the need for endotracheal intubation in the first 72 hours of life (HoL) compared with caffeine and CPAP alone.

The trial, conducted between January 2020 and December 2022, focused on the combination of early caffeine administration with less invasive surfactant administration (LISA) compared to the standard caffeine and continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) approach.

Preterm neonates, born at 24 to 29 weeks and 6 days of gestational age, were randomly assigned to receive either intravenous caffeine followed by LISA (intervention) or caffeine followed by CPAP (control). The primary goal was to determine the frequency of neonates requiring endotracheal intubation or meeting respiratory failure criteria within the first 72 hours of life.

The results were striking.

  • In the caffeine and LISA group, only 23% of neonates required intubation or met respiratory failure criteria within the critical 72-hour window, compared to a substantial 53% in the caffeine and CPAP group.
  • Even more encouraging, this significant reduction held true even after adjusting for gestational age strata, emphasizing the potential of the combined caffeine-LISA approach (odds ratio, 0.227; 95% confidence interval, 0.112 to 0.460; P<0.001).
  • The trial, while focusing on efficacy, also assessed adverse events.
  • Interestingly, adverse events were similar between the two groups, indicating that the innovative caffeine-LISA approach did not introduce additional risks.
  • Notably, the occurrence of bronchopulmonary dysplasia, a common concern in preterm infants, was notably lower in the LISA group (26%) compared to the control group (39%).

The study's findings have significant implications for neonatal care, suggesting that the early administration of caffeine along with less invasive surfactant administration could represent a pivotal shift in managing respiratory distress in preterm infants. The reduced need for endotracheal intubation is a crucial outcome, as intubation poses risks and challenges for these fragile neonates.

As the neonatal care landscape continues to evolve, this innovative approach provides a beacon of hope for improving outcomes in preterm infants facing respiratory challenges. Minimizing the risks associated with intubation and offering a less invasive alternative could mark a transformative advance in neonatal care practices. The potential long-term benefits, especially the reduced occurrence of bronchopulmonary dysplasia, underscore the positive impact of this combined caffeine-LISA strategy, offering a glimpse into a brighter future for the tiniest patients in neonatal intensive care units.

Tags:    
Article Source : NEJM: Evidence

Disclaimer: This website is primarily for healthcare professionals. The content here does not replace medical advice and should not be used as medical, diagnostic, endorsement, treatment, or prescription advice. Medical science evolves rapidly, and we strive to keep our information current. If you find any discrepancies, please contact us at corrections@medicaldialogues.in. Read our Correction Policy here. Nothing here should be used as a substitute for medical advice, diagnosis, or treatment. We do not endorse any healthcare advice that contradicts a physician's guidance. Use of this site is subject to our Terms of Use, Privacy Policy, and Advertisement Policy. For more details, read our Full Disclaimer here.

NOTE: Join us in combating medical misinformation. If you encounter a questionable health, medical, or medical education claim, email us at factcheck@medicaldialogues.in for evaluation.

Our comments section is governed by our Comments Policy . By posting comments at Medical Dialogues you automatically agree with our Comments Policy , Terms And Conditions and Privacy Policy .

Similar News