Surfactant therapy for bronchiolitis in critically ill infants

Kana R Jat, Deepak Chawla, Kana R Jat, Deepak Chawla

Abstract

Background: Bronchiolitis is one of the most frequent causes of respiratory failure in infants; some infants will require intensive care and mechanical ventilation. There is lack of evidence regarding effective treatment for bronchiolitis other than supportive care. Abnormalities of surfactant quantity or quality (or both) have been observed in severe cases of bronchiolitis. Exogenous surfactant administration appears to favourably change the haemodynamics of the lungs and may be a potentially promising therapy for severe bronchiolitis. This is an update of a review published in Issue 9, 2012. We did not identify any new studies for inclusion, and our conclusions remain unchanged.

Objectives: To evaluate the efficacy of exogenous surfactant administration (i.e. intratracheal administration of surfactant of any type (whether animal-derived or synthetic), at any dose and at any time after start of ventilation) compared to placebo, no intervention or standard care in reducing mortality and the duration of ventilation in infants and children with bronchiolitis requiring mechanical ventilation.

Search methods: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Studies (CENTRAL; 2015, Issue 5) which contains the Cochrane Acute Respiratory Infections Group's Specialised Register; MEDLINE (1948 to June week 3, 2015); EMBASE (1974 to June 2015); CINAHL (1982 to June 2015); LILACS (1985 to June 2015); and Web of Science (1985 to June 2015).

Selection criteria: We considered prospective, randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs evaluating the effect of exogenous surfactant in infants and children with bronchiolitis requiring mechanical ventilation.

Data collection and analysis: Two review authors selected studies independently. We extracted the data using a predefined proforma, independently analysed the data, and performed meta-analyses.

Main results: We included three small RCTs enrolling 79 participants. Two trials did not use a placebo in the control arms and the third trial used air placebo. Two included studies reported no mortality. We judged all three of the included studies to be at low risk or unclear risk across all risk of bias categories; we did not judge any of the studies to be at high risk of bias in any category. Our pooled analysis of the three trials revealed that duration of mechanical ventilation was not significantly different between the groups (mean difference (MD) -63.04, 95% confidence interval (CI) -130.43 to 4.35 hours) but duration of intensive care unit (ICU) stay was less in the surfactant group compared to the control group: MD -3.31, 95% CI -6.38 to -0.25 days. After excluding one trial which produced significant heterogeneity, the duration of mechanical ventilation and duration of ICU stay were significantly lower in the surfactant group compared to the control group: MD -28.99, 95% CI -40.10 to -17.87 hours; and MD -1.81, 95% CI -2.42 to -1.19 days, respectively. Use of surfactant had favourable effects on oxygenation and CO2 elimination. No adverse effects and no complications were observed in any of the three included studies. The level of evidence for duration of mechanical ventilation, duration of intensive care unit stay, oxygenation parameters, and carbon dioxide parameters was of moderate quality.

Authors' conclusions: Use of surfactant had favourable effects on duration of mechanical ventilation, duration of ICU stay, oxygenation, and CO2 elimination. However, the studies are few and small (n = 79) so available evidence is insufficient to establish the effectiveness of surfactant therapy for bronchiolitis in critically ill infants who require mechanical ventilation. There is a need for larger trials with adequate power and a cost-effectiveness analysis to evaluate the effectiveness of exogenous surfactant therapy for infants with bronchiolitis who require intensive care management.

Conflict of interest statement

Kana R Jat: none known. Deepak Chawla: none known.

Figures

1
1
Study flow diagram.
2
2
'Risk of bias' graph: review authors' judgements about each risk of bias item presented as percentages across all included studies.
3
3
'Risk of bias' summary: review authors' judgements about each risk of bias item for each included study.
4
4
Forest plot of comparison: 1 Primary outcome: 1.2 Duration of mechanical ventilation (hours).
5
5
Forest plot of comparison: 2 Secondary outcome: 2.1 Duration of ICU stay (days).
6
6
Forest plot of comparison: 2 Secondary outcome: 2.3 Po2/Fio2 ratio at 24 hrs.
7
7
Forest plot of comparison: 2 Secondary outcome: 2.5 pCO2 at 24 hrs (mmHg).
1.1. Analysis
1.1. Analysis
Comparison 1 Primary outcomes, Outcome 1 Mortality.
1.2. Analysis
1.2. Analysis
Comparison 1 Primary outcomes, Outcome 2 Duration of mechanical ventilation (hours).
2.1. Analysis
2.1. Analysis
Comparison 2 Secondary outcomes, Outcome 1 Duration of ICU stay (days).
2.2. Analysis
2.2. Analysis
Comparison 2 Secondary outcomes, Outcome 2 Gas exchange (Po2/Fio2 ratio at 12 hrs).
2.3. Analysis
2.3. Analysis
Comparison 2 Secondary outcomes, Outcome 3 Gas exchange (Po2/Fio2 ratio at 24 hrs).
2.4. Analysis
2.4. Analysis
Comparison 2 Secondary outcomes, Outcome 4 Gas exchange (pCO2 at 12 hrs (mmHg)).
2.5. Analysis
2.5. Analysis
Comparison 2 Secondary outcomes, Outcome 5 Gas exchange (pCO2 at 24 hrs (mmHg)).

Source: PubMed

3
Abonnere