Pediatrics · 2011
Intravenous immunoglobulin in neonates with rhesus hemolytic disease: a randomized controlled trial.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяРандомизированное исследованиеПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание 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.
Smits-Wintjens Vivianne E H J, Walther Frans J, Rath Mirjam E A, Lindenburg Irene T M, te Pas Arjan B, Kramer Christine M, Oepkes Dick, Brand Anneke, Lopriore Enrico
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Despite limited data, international guidelines recommend the use of intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIg) in neonates with rhesus hemolytic disease.
OBJECTIVE: We tested whether prophylactic use of IVIg reduces the need for exchange transfusions in neonates with rhesus hemolytic disease.
DESIGN AND SETTING: We performed a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial in neonates with rhesus hemolytic disease. After stratification for treatment with intrauterine transfusion, neonates were randomly assigned for IVIg (0.75 g/kg) or placebo (5% glucose). The primary outcome was the rate of exchange transfusions. Secondary outcomes were duration of phototherapy, maximum bilirubin levels, and the need of top-up red-cell transfusions.
RESULTS: Eighty infants were included in the study, 53 of whom (66%) were treated with intrauterine transfusion(s). There was no difference in the rate of exchange transfusions between the IVIg and placebo groups (7 of 41 [17%] vs 6 of 39 [15%]; P = .99) and in the number of exchange transfusions per patient (median [range]: 0 [0-2] vs 0 [0-2]; P = .90) or in duration of phototherapy (4.7 [1.8] vs 5.1 [2.1] days; P = .34), maximum bilirubin levels (14.8 [4.7] vs 14.1 [4.9] mg/dL; P = .52), and proportion of neonates who required top-up red-cell transfusions (34 of 41 [83%] vs 34 of 39 [87%]; P = .76).
CONCLUSIONS: Prophylactic IVIg does not reduce the need for exchange transfusion or the rates of other adverse neonatal outcomes. Our findings do not support the use of IVIg in neonates with rhesus hemolytic disease.
OBJECTIVE: We tested whether prophylactic use of IVIg reduces the need for exchange transfusions in neonates with rhesus hemolytic disease.
DESIGN AND SETTING: We performed a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial in neonates with rhesus hemolytic disease. After stratification for treatment with intrauterine transfusion, neonates were randomly assigned for IVIg (0.75 g/kg) or placebo (5% glucose). The primary outcome was the rate of exchange transfusions. Secondary outcomes were duration of phototherapy, maximum bilirubin levels, and the need of top-up red-cell transfusions.
RESULTS: Eighty infants were included in the study, 53 of whom (66%) were treated with intrauterine transfusion(s). There was no difference in the rate of exchange transfusions between the IVIg and placebo groups (7 of 41 [17%] vs 6 of 39 [15%]; P = .99) and in the number of exchange transfusions per patient (median [range]: 0 [0-2] vs 0 [0-2]; P = .90) or in duration of phototherapy (4.7 [1.8] vs 5.1 [2.1] days; P = .34), maximum bilirubin levels (14.8 [4.7] vs 14.1 [4.9] mg/dL; P = .52), and proportion of neonates who required top-up red-cell transfusions (34 of 41 [83%] vs 34 of 39 [87%]; P = .76).
CONCLUSIONS: Prophylactic IVIg does not reduce the need for exchange transfusion or the rates of other adverse neonatal outcomes. Our findings do not support the use of IVIg in neonates with rhesus hemolytic disease.