Article Text

other Versions

Download PDFPDF
Appropriateness of surfactant dosing for preterm babies with respiratory distress syndrome: retrospective cohort study
  1. Gilles Jourdain1,
  2. Feriel Zacaria1,
  3. Fatme Ammar1,
  4. Daniele De Luca1,2
  1. 1Division of Neonatal Critical care and Transportation, South Paris University Hospitals, Medical Center “A.Béclère”, AP-HP, Paris, France
  2. 2Institute of Anaesthesiology and Critical Care, Catholic University of the Sacred Heart, Rome, Italy
  1. Correspondence to Professor Daniele De Luca, Service de Réanimation Neonatale, GHU Paris Sud, site “A.Béclère”, 157 rue de la Porte de Trivaux, Clamart (Paris) 92140, France; dm.deluca{at}

Statistics from

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.

Poractant-α is the most common surfactant in Europe:1 its recommended dose is 200 mg/kg, according to pharmacokinetic and clinical data.2 We hypothesised that the correct dose is not often followed at the bedside as some clinicians may be tempted to administrate a rounded dose. In fact, a recent multicentre randomised clinical trial has been based on a rounded dose, as the authors acknowledge among the study limitations.3

We conducted a retrospective (2011–2013), population-based, cohort study performed on the formally established neonatal network in Parisian area,4 following Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology guidelines. Eligible babies were fulfilling the following conditions: (1) <37 weeks gestation, (2) respiratory distress syndrome defined as clinical distress needing oxygen and/or continuous positive airway pressure or mechanical ventilation with the typical radiological appearance, (3) surfactant administered in the …

View Full Text


  • Contributors GJ wrote the first manuscript draft and no honorarium was perceived for that. GJ also conceived the study and interpreted the data. FZ participated to the writing of the first manuscript draft, collected data and interpreted them. FA collected data and participated to the design of the study. DLD designed the study, analysed and interpreted the data, critically supervised the paper preparation and was responsible for the general study organisation. All authors reviewed the manuscript for important intellectual contents and approved the final version. All authors agreed to be accountable for all aspects of the work.

  • Competing interests None declared.

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