Poractant alfa versus beractant for respiratory distress syndrome in preterm infants: A retrospective cohort study

Authors

  • Saritha Paul,

    1. Department of Neonatology, King Edward Memorial Hospital for Women, Western Australia, Australia
    2. Department of Neonatology, Princess Margaret Hospital for Children, Perth, Western Australia, Australia
    3. Centre for Neonatal Research and Education, School of Paediatrics and Child Health, University of Western Australia, Perth, Western Australia, Australia
    Search for more papers by this author
  • Shripada Rao,

    Corresponding author
    1. Department of Neonatology, King Edward Memorial Hospital for Women, Western Australia, Australia
    2. Department of Neonatology, Princess Margaret Hospital for Children, Perth, Western Australia, Australia
    3. Centre for Neonatal Research and Education, School of Paediatrics and Child Health, University of Western Australia, Perth, Western Australia, Australia
    • Correspondence: Dr Shripada Rao, Department of Neonatology, Princess Margaret Hospital for Children, Perth, WA 6008, Australia. Fax: +61 89340 7852; email: shripada.rao@health.wa.gov.au

    Search for more papers by this author
  • Rolland Kohan,

    1. Department of Neonatology, King Edward Memorial Hospital for Women, Western Australia, Australia
    2. Centre for Neonatal Research and Education, School of Paediatrics and Child Health, University of Western Australia, Perth, Western Australia, Australia
    Search for more papers by this author
  • Judy McMichael,

    1. Department of Neonatology, King Edward Memorial Hospital for Women, Western Australia, Australia
    2. Department of Neonatology, Princess Margaret Hospital for Children, Perth, Western Australia, Australia
    Search for more papers by this author
  • Noel French,

    1. Department of Neonatology, King Edward Memorial Hospital for Women, Western Australia, Australia
    2. Centre for Neonatal Research and Education, School of Paediatrics and Child Health, University of Western Australia, Perth, Western Australia, Australia
    Search for more papers by this author
  • Guicheng Zhang,

    1. Department of Statistics, Princess Margaret Hospital for Children, Perth, Western Australia, Australia
    Search for more papers by this author
  • Karen Simmer

    1. Department of Neonatology, King Edward Memorial Hospital for Women, Western Australia, Australia
    2. Department of Neonatology, Princess Margaret Hospital for Children, Perth, Western Australia, Australia
    3. Centre for Neonatal Research and Education, School of Paediatrics and Child Health, University of Western Australia, Perth, Western Australia, Australia
    Search for more papers by this author

  • 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.

Abstract

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.

Ancillary