Comparison of Poractant Versus Beractant in the Treatment of Respiratory Distress Syndrome in Premature Neonates in a Tertiary Academic Medical Center

Persistent Link:
http://hdl.handle.net/10150/614514
Title:
Comparison of Poractant Versus Beractant in the Treatment of Respiratory Distress Syndrome in Premature Neonates in a Tertiary Academic Medical Center
Author:
Jorgensen, Ashley; Phan, Hanna
Affiliation:
College of Pharmacy, The University of Arizona
Issue Date:
2012
Rights:
Copyright © is held by the author.
Collection Information:
This item is part of the Pharmacy Student Research Projects collection, made available by the College of Pharmacy and the University Libraries at the University of Arizona. For more information about items in this collection, please contact Jennifer Martin, Associate Librarian and Clinical Instructor, Pharmacy Practice and Science, jenmartin@email.arizona.edu.
Publisher:
The University of Arizona.
Abstract:
Specific Aims: The objective of this study is to evaluate and compare clinical outcomes and economic impact involved with the use of beractant (B) compared to poractant (P) for the treatment of respiratory distress syndrome (RDS) in premature neonates admitted to a neonatal intensive care unit. Methods: Patients were included if they were less than 35 weeks gestational age at birth, survived at least 48 hours, and admitted to the neonatal intensive care unit and treated with P or B for RDS. The primary outcome of this study is the change in the fraction of inspired oxygen (FiO2) over the first 48 hours after surfactant administration. Secondary outcomes were the change in oxygen saturation, time spent on mechanical ventilation and continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP), complication occurrence and mortality of the neonates. Main Results: There were a total of 40 neonates whose charts were reviewed (n= 13 and n=27 in the P and B groups respectively). The mean gestational age of the neonates were 29.2+/-2.9 and 28.8+/-2.9 weeks in the P and B groups respectively. The FiO2 was found to not be lower between the P and B groups (35.5+/-22.2 and 42.4+/-24.2, respectively; p=0.379), as well as the O2 saturation (94.6+/-4.6 and 92.3+/-6.1; p=0.194). Significance was also not found for the other clinical or economic outcomes assessed in this study. Conclusions: There was not a significant difference between poractant and beractant in FiO2, O2 saturation, or in the other clinical outcomes evaluated in this study.
Description:
Class of 2012 Abstract
Keywords:
versus; treatment; respiratory distress syndrome (RDS); poractant; beractant; neonates
Advisor:
Phan, Hanna

Full metadata record

DC FieldValue Language
dc.contributor.advisorPhan, Hannaen
dc.contributor.authorJorgensen, Ashleyen
dc.contributor.authorPhan, Hannaen
dc.date.accessioned2016-06-23T19:47:08Z-
dc.date.available2016-06-23T19:47:08Z-
dc.date.issued2012-
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10150/614514-
dc.descriptionClass of 2012 Abstracten
dc.description.abstractSpecific Aims: The objective of this study is to evaluate and compare clinical outcomes and economic impact involved with the use of beractant (B) compared to poractant (P) for the treatment of respiratory distress syndrome (RDS) in premature neonates admitted to a neonatal intensive care unit. Methods: Patients were included if they were less than 35 weeks gestational age at birth, survived at least 48 hours, and admitted to the neonatal intensive care unit and treated with P or B for RDS. The primary outcome of this study is the change in the fraction of inspired oxygen (FiO2) over the first 48 hours after surfactant administration. Secondary outcomes were the change in oxygen saturation, time spent on mechanical ventilation and continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP), complication occurrence and mortality of the neonates. Main Results: There were a total of 40 neonates whose charts were reviewed (n= 13 and n=27 in the P and B groups respectively). The mean gestational age of the neonates were 29.2+/-2.9 and 28.8+/-2.9 weeks in the P and B groups respectively. The FiO2 was found to not be lower between the P and B groups (35.5+/-22.2 and 42.4+/-24.2, respectively; p=0.379), as well as the O2 saturation (94.6+/-4.6 and 92.3+/-6.1; p=0.194). Significance was also not found for the other clinical or economic outcomes assessed in this study. Conclusions: There was not a significant difference between poractant and beractant in FiO2, O2 saturation, or in the other clinical outcomes evaluated in this study.en
dc.language.isoen_USen
dc.publisherThe University of Arizona.en
dc.rightsCopyright © is held by the author.en
dc.subjectversusen
dc.subjecttreatmenten
dc.subjectrespiratory distress syndrome (RDS)en
dc.subjectporactanten
dc.subjectberactanten
dc.subjectneonatesen
dc.titleComparison of Poractant Versus Beractant in the Treatment of Respiratory Distress Syndrome in Premature Neonates in a Tertiary Academic Medical Centeren_US
dc.typetexten
dc.typeElectronic Reporten
dc.contributor.departmentCollege of Pharmacy, The University of Arizonaen
dc.description.collectioninformationThis item is part of the Pharmacy Student Research Projects collection, made available by the College of Pharmacy and the University Libraries at the University of Arizona. For more information about items in this collection, please contact Jennifer Martin, Associate Librarian and Clinical Instructor, Pharmacy Practice and Science, jenmartin@email.arizona.edu.en
All Items in UA Campus Repository are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.