rss
Arch Dis Child Fetal Neonatal Ed 2009;94:F360-F362 doi:10.1136/adc.2008.150938
  • Original article

Long term follow-up of very low birthweight infants from a neonatal volume versus pressure mechanical ventilation trial

  1. J Singh1,
  2. S K Sinha1,
  3. E Alsop1,
  4. S Gupta1,
  5. A Mishra2,
  6. S M Donn3
  1. 1
    Department of Neonatology, James Cook University Hospital, Middlesbrough, UK
  2. 2
    Department of Neonatology, Hope Hospital, Manchester, UK
  3. 3
    Division of Neonatal Perinatal Medicine, C.S. Mott Children’s Hospital University of Michigan Health System, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA
  1. Correspondence to Professor Sunil K Sinha, Department of Paediatrics and Neonatal Medicine, University of Durham and James Cook University Hospital, Marton Road, Middlesbrough TS4 3BW, UK; sunil.sinha{at}stees.nhs.uk
  • Accepted 9 February 2009
  • Published Online First 25 March 2009

Abstract

Background: A previous randomised trial showed volume controlled ventilation (VCV) was efficacious in ventilating very preterm and extremely low birthweight babies.

Objective: To compare long term survival, pulmonary morbidities and gross neurodevelopmental outcomes of babies randomised to either VCV or pressure limited ventilation (PLV) for treatment of respiratory distress syndrome.

Design/Methods: Masked evaluation of health status, including frequency of respiratory illness, use of medications, hospital admissions, and gross neurodevelopmental status were obtained using a structured parental questionnaire and verification from medical records.

Results: 94 of 109 children (86%) survived to discharge. Three died after discharge (2 VCV, 1 PLV). Modality of ventilation did not affect overall mortality; seven VCV children died (12%) versus 11 PLV (21%) (OR 0.5 (95% CI 0.1 to 1.4), p = 0.13). Respiratory abnormalities were present in 32 (37%), and 26 (30%) required hospital readmission. There was no significant difference in readmission rates between the two groups: VC 13/45 (29%) and PLV 19/40 (47%) (OR 0.4 (0.1 to 1.1), p = 0.07). Modality of ventilation did not affect frequency of respiratory illness: VC 12 (27%) and PLV 14 (35%) (OR 0.46 (0.1 to 1.1), p = 0.09). However, significantly fewer VCV children (13%, n = 6) compared to PLV children (32%, n = 13) required treatment with inhaled steroids/bronchodilators (OR 0.3 (0.1 to 0.9), p = 0.04). Nine children had severe neurodevelopmental disability (cerebral palsy, blindness, deafness) (9.8%; 3 VCV, 6 PLV 6) (OR 0.4 (0.09 to 1.7)).

Conclusions: The efficacy of VCV in very preterm and low birth babies appears to be maintained on longer term evaluation.

Footnotes

  • Competing interests None.

  • Ethics approval James Cook University Hospital Research Ethics Committee.

This Article

  1. Abstract
  2. Full text
  3. PDF
  4. All versions of this article:
    1. adc.2008.150938v1
    2. 94/5/F360 most recent

Responses

  1. Submit a response
  2. No responses published

Register for free content

The full back archive is now available for all BMJ Journals. Institutional subscribers may access the entire archive as part of their subscription. Personal subscribers will also have access to all content when logged in. Non-subscribers who register have free access to all articles published before 2006 right back to volume 1 issue 1. Register here to access the free archive of all BMJ Journals.

Don't forget to sign up for content alerts so you keep up to date with all the articles as they are published.