A PHP Error was encountered

Severity: Warning

Message: file_get_contents(https://...@pubfacts.com&api_key=b8daa3ad693db53b1410957c26c9a51b4908&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests

Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php

Line Number: 176

Backtrace:

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 1034
Function: getPubMedXML

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3152
Function: GetPubMedArticleOutput_2016

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword

File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once

Surfactant lavage for neonatal meconium aspiration syndrome-An updated meta-analysis. | LitMetric

Background: Surfactant lavage seems to have a good application prospect both in experimental models and patients with meconium aspiration syndrome (MAS). Data regarding the effect of surfactant lavage on pulmonary complications of MAS are conflicting. In view of these uncertainties, an updated meta-analysis including the latest literatures is performed.

Methods: A search was conducted by two investigators involved in this research in PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane databases for studies in English and other languages, in Wanfang, VIP, and Cnki databases for Chinese studies (all last launched on December 18, 2018). Ultimately, we identified 11 original studies, including the surfactant lavage group (n = 189) and the control group (n = 204). Odds ratio and weighted mean difference were calculated using a random effects or fixed effects model, depending on the data type and heterogeneity of the included studies.

Results: The comparison of effectiveness on MAS: (1) With respect to oxygen index at 48 hours stage and 72 hours stage, data showed significant difference between surfactant lavage/control groups (we/ighted mean difference [WMD] = -3.37, 95% confidence interval [CI], -5.68 ~ -1.06; p = 0.004 and 95% CI, -5.03 ~ -2.37; p < 0.00001). (2) With respect to days on mechanical ventilation, the analysis showed that there was significant difference between surfactant lavage group and control group (WMD = -1.12, 95% CI, -1.40 ~ -0.84; p < 0.00001). (3) Regarding the need for extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, days of oxygen therapy, and hospital stay, no significant differences were found. The comparison of possible complications of MAS: (1) Regarding pneumothorax, the analysis showed there was significant difference between surfactant lavage and control groups (odds ratio [OR] = 0.46, 95% CI, 0.24 ~ 0.85; p = 0.01). (2) With respect to mortality, persist pulmonary hypertension and pulmonary hemorrhage, the results showed no difference between the two groups.

Conclusion: With respect to oxygen index and days on mechanical ventilation, surfactant lavage is significantly effective compared with control group, though didn't eventually shorten days of oxygen therapy and hospital stay. In addition, our meta-analysis showed that surfactant lavage does not increase the risk of complications.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/JCMA.0000000000000357DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

surfactant lavage
32
control group
12
difference surfactant
12
surfactant
9
meconium aspiration
8
updated meta-analysis
8
complications mas
8
lavage group
8
odds ratio
8
respect oxygen
8

Similar Publications

Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?

Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!