• Hui Rong, Ying Bao, Zunjia Wen, Xiuli Chen, Cen Chen, and Fang Li.
• NICU.
• Medicine (Baltimore). 2020 Nov 25; 99 (48): e23113.

BackgroundPulmonary surfactant (PS) is commonly used for the treatment of neonatal respiratory distress syndrome (NRDS), several randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have evaluated the role of nebulized versus invasively delivered PS, yet the results remained inconsistent. Therefore, we aimed to conduct this meta-analysis to evaluate the effects and safety of nebulized versus invasively delivered PS in the treatment of NRDS.MethodsWe searched PubMed et al databases from inception date to May 15, 2020 for RCTs that compared nebulized vs invasively delivered PS. Two authors independently screened the studies and extracted data from the published articles. Summary odd ratios (OR) or mean differences (MDs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated for each outcome by means of fixed- or random-effects model.ResultsTwo RCTs with a total of 95 preterm neonates were identified, with 48 neonates received PS nebulization and 47 neonates undergone invasive PS administration. There was no significant difference in the SpO2 level (MD = -0.44, 95% CI -6.01 to 5.12) and the A/APaO2 level (MD = 0.01, 95% CI -0.02 to 0.05) 1 hour after treatment among 2 groups. But the duration of mechanical ventilation in the nebulization groups was significantly less than that of invasive group (MD = -30.70, 95% CI -41.45 to 19.95).ConclusionsGiven the limited evidences, the effects and safety of nebulized versus invasively delivered PS still need further verification.

24 keywords...

hide…