Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 2 de 2
Filter
Add more filters










Database
Language
Publication year range
1.
Eur J Pediatr ; 181(6): 2249-2262, 2022 Jun.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-35348825

ABSTRACT

Sepsis due to the administered probiotic strain/s is a barrier against adoption of prophylactic probiotic supplementation in preterm infants to reduce the risk of necrotising enterocolitis (NEC ≥ Stage II), all-cause mortality, late-onset sepsis, and feeding intolerance. We aimed to conduct a systematic review for reports of probiotic sepsis in preterm infants (gestation < 37 weeks). Databases including PubMed, Embase, Emcare, Cochrane Central library, and Google Scholar were searched in August 2021 and updated in Jan 2022. Probiotic sepsis was defined as positive blood/CSF culture isolating administered probiotic strain with symptoms suggestive of infection. Data collection included birth weight, gestation, comorbidities (e.g. gut surgery, NEC), presence of central venous catheters, treatment, and outcome. Literature search revealed 1569 studies. A total of 16 reports [randomised control trial (RCT): none; non-RCT: 1; case series: 8; case report: 7] involving 32 preterm infants with probiotic sepsis were included after exclusions for various reasons. Majority of the cases were born < 32 weeks' gestation. Bifidobacterium (N = 19) was the most commonly isolated organism followed by Lactobacillus (N = 10), and Saccharomyces (N = 3). A total of 25/32 cases were confirmed to be due to the administered probiotic strain on full genomic analysis. Two studies reported one neonatal death each. Twelve neonates had comorbidities. Majority were treated with antibiotics (29/32) whereas others (3/32) required antifungal treatment. CONCLUSION: Probiotics sepsis is relatively an uncommon event in preterm infants. Majority of the cases recovered after antibiotic or antifungal treatment. The importance of optimal surveillance and treatment of probiotic sepsis and research towards alternatives to probiotics (e.g. postbiotics) is emphasised. WHAT IS KNOWN: • Probiotics have been shown to reduce necrotising enterocolitis, late-onset sepsis, all-cause mortality, and time to reach full enteral feeds in preterm infants. • Despite the evidence, use of probiotics is not universal due to concerns regarding probiotic-associated sepsis in preterm infants. WHAT IS NEW: • This comprehensive systematic review showed that probiotic sepsis is a relatively rare phenomenon in preterm infants. • All except one case where the diagnosis was uncertain recovered after antimicrobial therapy.


Subject(s)
Enterocolitis, Necrotizing , Probiotics , Sepsis , Anti-Bacterial Agents , Antifungal Agents , Enterocolitis, Necrotizing/epidemiology , Humans , Infant , Infant, Newborn , Infant, Premature , Probiotics/therapeutic use , Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic , Sepsis/etiology , Sepsis/prevention & control
2.
Am J Perinatol ; 39(15): 1693-1701, 2022 11.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33757137

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVE: The study aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of two different nasal high-flow rates for primary respiratory support in preterm neonates STUDY DESIGN: In this single-center, double-blinded randomized controlled trial, preterm neonates ≥28 weeks of gestation with respiratory distress from birth were randomized to treatment with either increased nasal flow therapy (8-10 L/min) or standard nasal flow therapy (5-7 L/min). The primary outcome of nasal high-flow therapy failure was a composite outcome defined as the need for higher respiratory support (continuous positive airway pressure [CPAP] or mechanical ventilation) or surfactant therapy. RESULTS: A total of 212 neonates were enrolled. Nasal high-flow failure rate in the increased flow group was similar to the standard flow group (22 vs. 29%, relative risk = 0.81 [95% confidence interval: 0.57-1.15]). However, nasal flow rate escalation was significantly more common in the standard flow group (64 vs. 43%, p = 0.004). None of the infants in the increased flow group developed air leak syndromes. CONCLUSION: Higher nasal flow rate (8-10 L/min) when compared with lower nasal flow rate of 5 to 7 L/min did not reduce the need for higher respiratory support (CPAP/mechanical ventilation) or surfactant therapy in moderately and late preterm neonates. However, initial flow rates of 5 L/min were not optimal for most preterm infants receiving primary nasal flow therapy. KEY POINTS: · Use of high nasal flows (8-10 L/min) did not reduce the need for higher respiratory support in moderately and late preterm infants.. · Nasal flow rate of 5 L/min was not optimal for most preterms with respiratory distress from birth.. · Careful patient selection and optimized flow settings could enhance nasal flow success in neonates..


Subject(s)
Pulmonary Surfactants , Respiratory Distress Syndrome, Newborn , Infant , Female , Infant, Newborn , Humans , Pregnancy , Respiratory Distress Syndrome, Newborn/drug therapy , Infant, Premature , Pulmonary Surfactants/therapeutic use , Continuous Positive Airway Pressure , Surface-Active Agents
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL
...