A comparison of surfactant administration through i-gel and ET-tube in the treatment of respiratory distress syndrome in newborns weighing more than 2000 grams.

Abstract

Background:Surfactant administration together with nasal Continuous Positive Airway Pressure (nCPAP) administration is considered to be the basis for Newborn's Respiratory Distress Syndrome (RDS) management. This study evaluated the method of directing the surfactant to the lungs in newborns affiliated with RDS through i-gel (i-gel surfactant administration/i-gelSA) compared to the standard care INSURE method, in a clinical trial.Materials and Methods:This randomized control trial (RCT) was done on newborns weighing ≥2000 g, with RDS, while being supported with Bubble-CPAP. Newborns, which required FiO2 ≥0.3 under Continuous Distending Pressure (CDP) ≥5 cm H2O for more than 30 minutes to maintain SpO2 in the range of 89 - 95%, were given 100 mg/kg of Survanta. In the interventional group or the i-gelSA (i-gel Surfactant Administration) group, 35 newborns experienced surfactant administration with i-gel and 35 newborns in the control or INSURE group. The average a/APO2 before and after surfactant administration, repeated need for surfactant administration, average nCPAP duration, need for invasive mechanical ventilation, pneumothorax, and the average duration of hospitalization in the Neonatal Intensive Care Unit (NICU) were compared.Results:Although the average a/APO2 showed no significant difference before the procedure; in the i-gelSA group, this average was meaningfully higher after the administration of the surfactant (P = 0.001). The other factors showed no significant difference.Conclusion:According to the results of this study, the surfactant administration using i-gel was more successful in oxygenation improvement than the INSURE method, and the i-gel method could even be promoted to the standard care position. However, more research is needed in this area.