American journal of health-system pharmacy : AJHP : official journal of the American Society of Health-System Pharmacists · 2004
Comparison of beractant and calfactant in a neonatal intensive care unit.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Hastings Linda K, Renfro William H, Sharma Renu
Аннотация
PURPOSE: The relative efficacy, complications and cost of beractant and calfactant were studied.
METHODS: All patients admitted to a neonatal intensive care unit between January and November 2001 with an estimated gestational age (EGA) of < or = 29 weeks were included in this retrospective study. Neonates with an EGA of > 29 weeks who required surfactant treatment because of respiratory distress syndrome (RDS) were also enrolled. The prophylaxis group included all neonates with an EGA of < or = 29 weeks who received a prophylactic dose of surfactant within one hour of birth. The rescue group included neonates who did not receive a prophylactic dose, who demonstrated radiographic and clinical signs of RDS, and who received a rescue dose of surfactant.
RESULTS: Of 139 patients reviewed, 107 (77%) were included in the study. No significant difference between the two surfactants in either group was found in mean fraction of inspired oxygen (FiO2) at 72 hours, time to an FiO2 of 30%, total number of doses per patient, and complications. The cost of surfactant administered per patient did not differ significantly between the two drugs in each group, but the cost of the amount wasted per patient did. The mean total cost of prophylaxis per patient was thus significantly higher for calfactant ($513) than for beractant ($379).
CONCLUSION: Beractant and calfactant were similar in terms of efficacy, safety, and total number of doses per patient. However, calfactant was significantly more costly because of greater product waste.
METHODS: All patients admitted to a neonatal intensive care unit between January and November 2001 with an estimated gestational age (EGA) of < or = 29 weeks were included in this retrospective study. Neonates with an EGA of > 29 weeks who required surfactant treatment because of respiratory distress syndrome (RDS) were also enrolled. The prophylaxis group included all neonates with an EGA of < or = 29 weeks who received a prophylactic dose of surfactant within one hour of birth. The rescue group included neonates who did not receive a prophylactic dose, who demonstrated radiographic and clinical signs of RDS, and who received a rescue dose of surfactant.
RESULTS: Of 139 patients reviewed, 107 (77%) were included in the study. No significant difference between the two surfactants in either group was found in mean fraction of inspired oxygen (FiO2) at 72 hours, time to an FiO2 of 30%, total number of doses per patient, and complications. The cost of surfactant administered per patient did not differ significantly between the two drugs in each group, but the cost of the amount wasted per patient did. The mean total cost of prophylaxis per patient was thus significantly higher for calfactant ($513) than for beractant ($379).
CONCLUSION: Beractant and calfactant were similar in terms of efficacy, safety, and total number of doses per patient. However, calfactant was significantly more costly because of greater product waste.