Conflict of interest: None of the authors have any conflict of interest. This study received no funding. None of the investigators have any affiliation to the surfactant manufacturing industry.
Poractant alfa versus beractant for respiratory distress syndrome in preterm infants: A retrospective cohort study
Article first published online: 26 JUN 2013
© 2013 The Authors. Journal of Paediatrics and Child Health © 2013 Paediatrics and Child Health Division (Royal Australasian College of Physicians)
Journal of Paediatrics and Child Health
Volume 49, Issue 10, pages 839–844, October 2013
How to Cite
Paul, S., Rao, S., Kohan, R., McMichael, J., French, N., Zhang, G. and Simmer, K. (2013), Poractant alfa versus beractant for respiratory distress syndrome in preterm infants: A retrospective cohort study. Journal of Paediatrics and Child Health, 49: 839–844. doi: 10.1111/jpc.12300
- Issue published online: 17 OCT 2013
- Article first published online: 26 JUN 2013
- Manuscript Accepted: 26 APR 2013
- chronic lung disease;
- premature infant;
- pulmonary surfactant;
- respiratory distress syndrome
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.
Single-centre, retrospective cohort study of inborn preterm infants <32 weeks gestation (23–31+6).
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.
The results of our study do not support the need for preferential use of poractant alfa or beractant.