Back to Search Start Over

Inhaled nitric oxide in preterm infants: an individual-patient data meta-analysis of randomized trials

Authors :
Lisa M, Askie
Roberta A, Ballard
Gary R, Cutter
Carlo, Dani
Diana, Elbourne
David, Field
Jean-Michel, Hascoet
Anna Maria, Hibbs
John P, Kinsella
Jean-Christophe, Mercier
Wade, Rich
Michael D, Schreiber
Pimol Srisuparp, Wongsiridej
Nim V, Subhedar
Krisa P, Van Meurs
Merryn, Voysey
Keith, Barrington
Richard A, Ehrenkranz
Neil N, Finer
Dennis, Black
Source :
Pediatrics. 128(4)
Publication Year :
2011

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Inhaled nitric oxide (iNO) is an effective therapy for pulmonary hypertension and hypoxic respiratory failure in term infants. Fourteen randomized controlled trials (n = 3430 infants) have been conducted on preterm infants at risk for chronic lung disease (CLD). The study results seem contradictory. DESIGN/METHODS: Individual-patient data meta-analysis included randomized controlled trials of preterm infants ( RESULTS: Data from 3298 infants in 12 trials (96%) were analyzed. There was no statistically significant effect of iNO on death or CLD (59% vs 61%: relative risk [RR]: 0.96 [95% confidence interval (CI): 0.92–1.01]; P = .11) or severe neurologic events on imaging (25% vs 23%: RR: 1.12 [95% CI: 0.98–1.28]; P = .09). There were no statistically significant differences in iNO effect according to any of the patient-level characteristics tested. In trials that used a starting iNO dose of >5 vs ≤5 ppm there was evidence of improved outcome (interaction P = .02); however, these differences were not observed at other levels of exposure to iNO. This result was driven primarily by 1 trial, which also differed according to overall dose, duration, timing, and indication for treatment; a significant reduction in death or CLD (RR: 0.85 [95% CI: 0.74–0.98]) was found. CONCLUSIONS: Routine use of iNO for treatment of respiratory failure in preterm infants cannot be recommended. The use of a higher starting dose might be associated with improved outcome, but because there were differences in the designs of these trials, it requires further examination.

Details

Language :
English
ISSN :
10984275 and 00314005
Volume :
128
Issue :
4
Database :
OpenAIRE
Journal :
Pediatrics
Accession number :
edsair.doi.dedup.....966da279fa6d8f7d596c96d89b34d347