Literature DB >> 23670227

Surfactant inadvertent loss using feeding catheters or endotracheal tubes.

Daniele De Luca1, Daniele De Luca1, Angelo Minucci1, Leonarda Gentile1, Ettore D Capoluongo1.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: Surfactant has been administered through endotracheal tubes and also under spontaneous breathing using feeding catheters. We asked if different tube diameters and temperature may affect the amount of surfactant effectively delivered to the lungs.
DESIGN: Bench study using high-accuracy, legal balance and tube/catheters of different diameters. We injected 200 mg of poractant alfa into the tubes followed by air boluses. Experiments were performed in triplicate, both at room temperature and at 37°C. Surfactant and phospholipid remaining in the tube were calculated.
RESULTS: Surfactant lost into thin catheters (11 ± 0.4%) was more than that in endotracheal tubes (2-mm diameter: 3.6 ± 1.4%; 2.5-mm diameter: 3.7 ± 0.2%; 3-mm diameter: 5.2 ± 0.4%; p < 0.001 at post hoc test in each comparison against the thin catheter). Similar findings were found at 37°C (2-mm tube: 3.4 ± 0.4%; 2.5-mm tube: 3.8 ± 0.2%; 3-mm tube: 3.6 ± 0.4%; feeding tube: 11.5 ± 0.6%; p < 0.001 as above). In terms of lost phospholipids, 23 ± 0.8 mg were lost in the feeding tubes; 7.2 ± 2.9 mg (2-mm diameter), 7.4 ± 0.4 mg (2.5-mm diameter), and 10.3 ± 0.9 mg (3-mm diameter) of phospholipids remained in endotracheal tubes (p < 0.001 in each comparison against the feeding tube).
CONCLUSIONS: Surfactant loss using thin catheters is around two to three times higher than using common endotracheal tubes; on average, 20 mg of phospholipids (11% of the administered dose) are lost. These data may be useful to refine surfactant dosing. Thieme Medical Publishers 333 Seventh Avenue, New York, NY 10001, USA.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2013        PMID: 23670227     DOI: 10.1055/s-0033-1345262

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Am J Perinatol        ISSN: 0735-1631            Impact factor:   1.862


  7 in total

Review 1.  Surfactant for Respiratory Distress Syndrome: New Ideas on a Familiar Drug with Innovative Applications.

Authors:  H J Niemarkt; M C Hütten; Boris W Kramer
Journal:  Neonatology       Date:  2017-05-25       Impact factor: 4.035

2.  European perspective on less invasive surfactant administration-a survey.

Authors:  Daniel Klotz; Ugo Porcaro; Thilo Fleck; Hans Fuchs
Journal:  Eur J Pediatr       Date:  2016-12-09       Impact factor: 3.183

Review 3.  Guidelines for surfactant replacement therapy in neonates.

Authors:  Eugene H Ng; Vibhuti Shah
Journal:  Paediatr Child Health       Date:  2021-02-01       Impact factor: 2.253

4.  Introduction of less invasive surfactant administration (LISA), impact on diagnostic and therapeutic procedures in early life: a historical cohort study.

Authors:  I A L Bugter; L C E Janssen; J Dieleman; B W Kramer; P Andriessen; H J Niemarkt
Journal:  BMC Pediatr       Date:  2020-09-03       Impact factor: 2.125

5.  Incidence, predictors of success and outcome of LISA in very preterm infants.

Authors:  Gergely Balazs; Andras Balajthy; Magdolna Riszter; Tamas Kovacs; Tamas Szabo; Gusztav Belteki; Gyorgy Balla
Journal:  Pediatr Pulmonol       Date:  2022-04-26

6.  Effect of a new respiratory care bundle on bronchopulmonary dysplasia in preterm neonates.

Authors:  Cristina Ramos-Navarro; Noelia González-Pacheco; Ana Rodríguez-Sánchez de la Blanca; Manuel Sánchez-Luna
Journal:  Eur J Pediatr       Date:  2020-06-02       Impact factor: 3.183

7.  Comparison of minimally invasive surfactant therapy with intubation surfactant administration and extubation for treating preterm infants with respiratory distress syndrome: a randomized clinical trial.

Authors:  Mohammad Kazem Sabzehei; Behnaz Basiri; Maryam Shokouhi; Sajad Ghahremani; Ali Moradi
Journal:  Clin Exp Pediatr       Date:  2021-07-28
  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.