Veena Manja1,2, Ola D Saugstad3, Satyan Lakshminrusimha4. 1. Division of Cardiology, Department of Internal Medicine, Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Buffalo, New York. 2. Department of Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, McMaster's University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. 3. Department of Pediatric Research, Oslo University Hospital, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway; and. 4. Division of Neonatal-Perinatal Medicine, Department of Pediatrics, Woman and Children's Hospital of Buffalo, University at Buffalo, Buffalo, New York slakshmi@buffalo.edu.
Abstract
CONTEXT: The optimal oxygen saturation target for extremely preterm infants remains unclear. OBJECTIVE: To systematically review evidence evaluating the effect of lower (85%-89%) versus higher (91%-95%) pulse oxygen saturation (Spo2) target on mortality and neurodevelopmental impairment (NDI) at 18 to 24 months. DATA SOURCES: Electronic databases and all published randomized trials evaluating lower versus higher Spo2 target in preterm infants. STUDY SELECTION: A total of 2896 relevant citations were identified; 5 trials were included in the final analysis. DATA EXTRACTION: Data from 5 trials were analyzed for quality of evidence and risk of bias. LIMITATIONS: Limitations include heterogeneity in age at enrollment and comorbidities between trials and change in oximeter algorithm midway through 3 trials. RESULTS: There was no difference in the incidence of primary outcome (death/NDI at 18-24 months) in the 2 groups; risk ratio,1.05, 95% confidence interval 0.98-1.12, P = .18. Mortality before 18 to 24 months was higher in the lower-target group (risk ratio,1.16, 95% confidence interval 1.03-1.31, P = .02). Rates of NDI and severe visual loss did not differ between the 2 groups. Proportion of time infants spent outside the target range while on supplemental oxygen ranged from 8.2% to 27.4% <85% and 8.1% to 22.4% >95% with significant overlap between the 2 groups. CONCLUSIONS: There was no difference in primary outcome between the 2 Spo2 target groups. The collective data suggest that risks associated with restricting the upper Spo2 target limit to 89% outweigh the benefits. The quality of evidence was moderate. We speculate that a wider target range (lower alarm limit, 89% and upper, 96%) may increase time spent within range, but the safety profile of this approach remains to be determined.
CONTEXT: The optimal oxygen saturation target for extremely preterm infants remains unclear. OBJECTIVE: To systematically review evidence evaluating the effect of lower (85%-89%) versus higher (91%-95%) pulse oxygen saturation (Spo2) target on mortality and neurodevelopmental impairment (NDI) at 18 to 24 months. DATA SOURCES: Electronic databases and all published randomized trials evaluating lower versus higher Spo2 target in preterm infants. STUDY SELECTION: A total of 2896 relevant citations were identified; 5 trials were included in the final analysis. DATA EXTRACTION: Data from 5 trials were analyzed for quality of evidence and risk of bias. LIMITATIONS: Limitations include heterogeneity in age at enrollment and comorbidities between trials and change in oximeter algorithm midway through 3 trials. RESULTS: There was no difference in the incidence of primary outcome (death/NDI at 18-24 months) in the 2 groups; risk ratio,1.05, 95% confidence interval 0.98-1.12, P = .18. Mortality before 18 to 24 months was higher in the lower-target group (risk ratio,1.16, 95% confidence interval 1.03-1.31, P = .02). Rates of NDI and severe visual loss did not differ between the 2 groups. Proportion of time infants spent outside the target range while on supplemental oxygen ranged from 8.2% to 27.4% <85% and 8.1% to 22.4% >95% with significant overlap between the 2 groups. CONCLUSIONS: There was no difference in primary outcome between the 2 Spo2 target groups. The collective data suggest that risks associated with restricting the upper Spo2 target limit to 89% outweigh the benefits. The quality of evidence was moderate. We speculate that a wider target range (lower alarm limit, 89% and upper, 96%) may increase time spent within range, but the safety profile of this approach remains to be determined.
Authors: Gordon H Guyatt; Andrew D Oxman; Victor Montori; Gunn Vist; Regina Kunz; Jan Brozek; Pablo Alonso-Coello; Ben Djulbegovic; David Atkins; Yngve Falck-Ytter; John W Williams; Joerg Meerpohl; Susan L Norris; Elie A Akl; Holger J Schünemann Journal: J Clin Epidemiol Date: 2011-07-30 Impact factor: 6.437
Authors: David G Sweet; Virgilio Carnielli; Gorm Greisen; Mikko Hallman; Eren Ozek; Richard Plavka; Ola Didrik Saugstad; Umberto Simeoni; Christian P Speer; Máximo Vento; Gerard H A Visser; Henry L Halliday Journal: Neonatology Date: 2016-09-21 Impact factor: 4.035
Authors: Michele C Walsh; Juliann M Di Fiore; Richard J Martin; Marie Gantz; Waldemar A Carlo; Neil Finer Journal: JAMA Pediatr Date: 2016-03 Impact factor: 16.193
Authors: Lisa M Askie; Peter Brocklehurst; Brian A Darlow; Neil Finer; Barbara Schmidt; William Tarnow-Mordi Journal: BMC Pediatr Date: 2011-01-17 Impact factor: 2.125
Authors: Lisa M Askie; Brian A Darlow; Peter G Davis; Neil Finer; Ben Stenson; Maximo Vento; Robin Whyte Journal: Cochrane Database Syst Rev Date: 2017-04-11
Authors: Shlomit Radom-Aizik; Frank P Zaldivar; Dwight M Nance; Fadia Haddad; Dan M Cooper; Gregory R Adams Journal: Clin Transl Sci Date: 2018-03-30 Impact factor: 4.689