Article Text

Download PDFPDF
Letter
Comparison of treatment strategies for anaemia of prematurity in extremely low birthweight infants between 1997 and 2011
  1. Alyssa Wüest1,
  2. Helen Manser2,
  3. Helmut Küster3,
  4. Ruth Mari Löllgen4,
  5. Tina Arenz5,
  6. Stephan Arenz2,
  7. Mathias Nelle2,
  8. Roland Gerull2
  1. 1Department of Neonatology, Children's Hospital Kantonsspital Aarau, Aarau, Switzerland
  2. 2Division of Neonatology, Inselspital, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland
  3. 3Division of Neonatology, Children's Hospital, University of Göttingen, Göttingen, Germany
  4. 4Pediatric Emergency Department, Inselspital, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland
  5. 5Department of Pediatrics, Inselspital, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland
  1. Correspondence to Dr Roland Gerull, Division of Neonatology, Inselspital, University of Bern, Bern CH-3010, Switzerland; roland.gerull{at}insel.ch

Statistics from Altmetric.com

Anaemia of prematurity (AOP) is a common sequela of preterm birth.1 It remains largely unknown how individual neonatal intensive care units (NICUs) manage AOP and whether treatment strategies have changed over time. We present the results of a standardised multicentre survey to assess the alterations in the treatment of AOP in NICUs caring for extremely low birthweight (ELBW) infants comparing Germany in 1997 (n=125 NICUs) to German-speaking countries in 2011 (n=129): Germany (n=110), Austria (n=10) and Switzerland (n=9).2 Preparation strategies for red blood cells (RBCs), transfusion volume, and rate and protocols for erythropoietin administration were analysed. High response rates (63.6%, 1997; 66.2%, 2011) make our results representative for German-speaking countries: Treatment strategies for AOP …

View Full Text

Footnotes

  • Contributors AW analysed the data, performed the literature research and wrote the first draft of the manuscript. TA was responsible for development and realisation of the first survey. HK supervised the development and contributed to the realisation of the first survey. RG was involved in the design of the second questionnaire, centre recruitment and data analysis, and reviewed the manuscript for intellectual content and approved the final version. HM designed the second questionnaire, developed the database, was responsible for data management and centre recruitment. SA was responsible for centre recruitment, development of the database of the second questionnaire. MN supervised the development and realisation of the second survey and acquired hospital funds for the incentive. RML critically reviewed the manuscript for important intellectual content and approved the final version. All listed authors on the manuscript have seen and approved the submitted version of the manuscript and take full responsibility for the manuscript.

  • Competing interests None declared.

  • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; internally peer reviewed.

Request Permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.