Poractant Alfa Versus Beractant for Respiratory Distress Syndrome in Preterm Infants: a Retrospective Cohort Study

Aim: Poractant alfa and beractant are the commonly used animal derived surfactants in preterm infants with respiratory distress syndrome. Between 2005 and 2007, poractant alfa and beractant were alternated every month in our neonatal intensive care unit for 27 months. The aim of this study was to co...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Paul, S., Rao, S., Kohan, R., McMichael, J., French, N., Zhang, Guicheng, Simmer, K.
Format: Journal Article
Published: Blackwell Scientific Publications 2013
Subjects:
Online Access:http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.11937/14685
_version_ 1848748689104830464
author Paul, S.
Rao, S.
Kohan, R.
McMichael, J.
French, N.
Zhang, Guicheng
Simmer, K.
author_facet Paul, S.
Rao, S.
Kohan, R.
McMichael, J.
French, N.
Zhang, Guicheng
Simmer, K.
author_sort Paul, S.
building Curtin Institutional Repository
collection Online Access
description Aim: Poractant alfa and beractant are the commonly used animal derived surfactants in preterm infants with respiratory distress syndrome. Between 2005 and 2007, poractant alfa and beractant were alternated every month in our neonatal intensive care unit for 27 months. The aim of this study was to compare the outcomes of preterm infants who received poractant alfa versus beractant. Method: Single-centre, retrospective cohort study of inborn preterm infants <32 weeks gestation (23–31+6). Results: Six hundred sixty-four preterm infants (<32 weeks) were born during the study period, of which 415 received surfactant (poractant alfa: 214; beractant: 201). Infants in the poractant alfa group were 2.8 days younger than beractant (27.0 2.3 vs. 27.4 2.3 weeks; P = 0.03). All other baseline characters including Clinical Risk Index for Babies II scores were similar for both groups. No significant differences were found for the following outcomes: death or chronic lung disease (78/212 vs. 59/200; P = 0.28); death (24/214 vs. 15/201, P = 0.24); moderate to severe chronic lung disease (63/212 vs. 46/200; P = 0.45) and moderate to severe disability (20/163 vs. 19/151, P = 0.98) between poractant alfa and beractant, respectively. Conclusions: The results of our study do not support the need for preferential use of poractant alfa or beractant.
first_indexed 2025-11-14T07:09:02Z
format Journal Article
id curtin-20.500.11937-14685
institution Curtin University Malaysia
institution_category Local University
last_indexed 2025-11-14T07:09:02Z
publishDate 2013
publisher Blackwell Scientific Publications
recordtype eprints
repository_type Digital Repository
spelling curtin-20.500.11937-146852017-09-13T14:05:39Z Poractant Alfa Versus Beractant for Respiratory Distress Syndrome in Preterm Infants: a Retrospective Cohort Study Paul, S. Rao, S. Kohan, R. McMichael, J. French, N. Zhang, Guicheng Simmer, K. Chronic lung disease pulmonary surfactant premature infant respiratory distress syndrome Aim: Poractant alfa and beractant are the commonly used animal derived surfactants in preterm infants with respiratory distress syndrome. Between 2005 and 2007, poractant alfa and beractant were alternated every month in our neonatal intensive care unit for 27 months. The aim of this study was to compare the outcomes of preterm infants who received poractant alfa versus beractant. Method: Single-centre, retrospective cohort study of inborn preterm infants <32 weeks gestation (23–31+6). Results: Six hundred sixty-four preterm infants (<32 weeks) were born during the study period, of which 415 received surfactant (poractant alfa: 214; beractant: 201). Infants in the poractant alfa group were 2.8 days younger than beractant (27.0 2.3 vs. 27.4 2.3 weeks; P = 0.03). All other baseline characters including Clinical Risk Index for Babies II scores were similar for both groups. No significant differences were found for the following outcomes: death or chronic lung disease (78/212 vs. 59/200; P = 0.28); death (24/214 vs. 15/201, P = 0.24); moderate to severe chronic lung disease (63/212 vs. 46/200; P = 0.45) and moderate to severe disability (20/163 vs. 19/151, P = 0.98) between poractant alfa and beractant, respectively. Conclusions: The results of our study do not support the need for preferential use of poractant alfa or beractant. 2013 Journal Article http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.11937/14685 10.1111/jpc.12300 Blackwell Scientific Publications restricted
spellingShingle Chronic lung disease
pulmonary surfactant
premature infant
respiratory distress syndrome
Paul, S.
Rao, S.
Kohan, R.
McMichael, J.
French, N.
Zhang, Guicheng
Simmer, K.
Poractant Alfa Versus Beractant for Respiratory Distress Syndrome in Preterm Infants: a Retrospective Cohort Study
title Poractant Alfa Versus Beractant for Respiratory Distress Syndrome in Preterm Infants: a Retrospective Cohort Study
title_full Poractant Alfa Versus Beractant for Respiratory Distress Syndrome in Preterm Infants: a Retrospective Cohort Study
title_fullStr Poractant Alfa Versus Beractant for Respiratory Distress Syndrome in Preterm Infants: a Retrospective Cohort Study
title_full_unstemmed Poractant Alfa Versus Beractant for Respiratory Distress Syndrome in Preterm Infants: a Retrospective Cohort Study
title_short Poractant Alfa Versus Beractant for Respiratory Distress Syndrome in Preterm Infants: a Retrospective Cohort Study
title_sort poractant alfa versus beractant for respiratory distress syndrome in preterm infants: a retrospective cohort study
topic Chronic lung disease
pulmonary surfactant
premature infant
respiratory distress syndrome
url http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.11937/14685