Archives of Disease in Childhood - Fetal and Neonatal Edition 2008;93:F430-F435
ORIGINAL ARTICLES
The INNOVO multicentre randomised controlled trial: neonatal ventilation with inhaled nitric oxide versus ventilatory support without nitric oxide for severe respiratory failure in preterm infants: follow up at 4–5 years
1 Neonatal Unit, Leicester Royal Infirmary, Leicester, UK
2 Neonatal Unit, John Radcliffe Hospital, Oxford, UK
3 Medical Statistics Unit, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, UK
4 Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics Unit, Murdoch Children’s Research Institute, Melbourne, Australia
5 Department of Health Science, Leicester Royal Infirmary, Leicester, UK
6 Health Services Research Unit, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, UK
Dr C L Huddy, Neonatal Unit, Leicester Royal Infirmary, Leicester, UK; huddy{at}doctors.org.uk
Background: Trials of inhaled nitric oxide (iNO) used short term in preterm infants with severe respiratory failure have to date shown no evidence of benefit, and there have been no trials reporting follow-up to 4 years of age. The INNOVO trial recruited 108 infants (55 iNO arm and 53 controls) from 15 neonatal units. By 1 year of age 59% had died, and 84% of the survivors had signs of impairment or disability.
Objective: This paper reports the long-term clinical effectiveness and costs of adding NO to the ventilator gases of preterm infants with severe respiratory failure.
Patients and methods: Children were assessed at age 4–5 years by interview, examination, cognitive and behavioural assessments. The outcome data were divided into seven domains and were described as normal, impaired or disabled (mild, moderate or severe) by the degree of functional loss.
Results: 38 of the 43 survivors had follow-up assessments. In the iNO group 62% (34/55) had died or were severely disabled, compared to 70% (37/53) in the no iNO group (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.67 to 1.16). There was no evidence of difference in the levels of impairment or disability between the two groups in any of the domains studied, or of cost differences, amongst the survivors.
Conclusion: For this group of babies with severe respiratory failure there was no evidence of difference in the longer-term outcome between those babies allocated to iNO and those who were allocated to no iNO. The challenge is to identify those premature babies who are able to respond to NO with clinically important health improvements.
Trial registration number: 17821339.
CiteULike 
Complore 
Connotea 
Del.icio.us 
Digg 
Reddit 
Technorati What's this?
This article has been cited by other articles:
-
Kobzik, L.
(2009). Translating NO Biology into Clinical Advances: Still Searching for the Right Dictionary?. Am. J. Respir. Cell Mol. Bio.
41: 9-13
[Full Text]
- Full Text
- Full Text (PDF)
-
All Versions of this Article:
adc.2007.129353v1
93/6/F430 most recent - Submit a response
- Alert me when this article is cited
- Alert me when eLetters are posted
- Alert me if a correction is posted
- Citation Map
Services
- Email this link to a friend
- Similar articles in ADC Online
- Similar articles in PubMed
- Add article to my folders
- Download to citation manager
- Request Permissions
Citing Articles
Google Scholar
PubMed
Topic Collections
-
Drugs: CNS (not psychiatric)
-
Child health
-
Infant health
-
Neonatal health
- Clinical trials (epidemiology)
Bookmark with
Register for free content
The full back archive is now available for all BMJ Journals. Institutional subscribers may access the entire archive as part of their subscription. Personal subscribers will also have access to all content when logged in. Non-subscribers who register have free access to all articles published before 2006 right back to volume 1 issue 1. Register here to access the free archive of all BMJ Journals.
Don't forget to sign up for content alerts so you keep up to date with all the articles as they are published.
