
==== Front
Can J Respir Ther
Can J Respir Ther
3251
Canadian Journal of Respiratory Therapy: CJRT = Revue Canadienne de la Thérapie Respiratoire : RCTR
1205-9838
2368-6820
Canadian Society of Respiratory Therapists Website: Canadian Journal of Respiratory Therapy

37781350
77606
10.29390/001c.77606
Research Article
Purpose built catheters for minimally invasive surfactant therapy: Experience from a Canadian tertiary level neonatal intensive care unit
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9903-6251
Al Harthy Talib 1 2
Miller Michael R 3 4
https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5006-537X
daSilva Orlando 3
https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3715-8066
Bhattacharya Soume 3 5
1 Schulich School of Medicine, Western University
2 Department of Pediatrics London Health Sciences Centre https://ror.org/037tz0e16
3 Department of Pediatrics Western University https://ror.org/02grkyz14
4 Children’s Health Research Institute
5 London Health Sciences Centre https://ror.org/05pr37258
*Corresponding Author: Soume Bhattacharya Children’s Hospital at LHSC 800 Commissioners Road East, Rm D4-212, London, Ontario N6A 5W9 Email: Soume.Bhattacharya@lhsc.on.ca Phone: 5196858500 Ext 64363 Fax: 519.646.6123
23 6 2023
2023
59 137144
16 3 2023
31 5 2023
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial License (4.0) which permits non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

Background

Minimally invasive surfactant therapy (MIST), a method of surfactant delivery via a thin catheter during spontaneous breathing, is an increasingly popular alternative to intubation and surfactant administration. Recently, purpose-built catheters for MIST received regulatory approval in Canada and became available for use. However, procedural success and user experience with such catheters have not been described.

Methods

This retrospective cohort study included neonates who received MIST using purpose-built catheters between January 1, 2021, and March 31, 2022. Two types of purpose-built catheters were used in this period - SurfCath™ and BLEScath™. Procedural success, number of attempts, and adverse events in neonates receiving MIST via the two catheters were compared using chi-square or Fisher’s tests. User experience was described using an ease-of-use scale.

Results

Thirty-seven neonates met eligibility criteria; 22 received MIST via SurfCath™, whereas 15 received MIST via BLEScath™. Success rates were 91% in SurfCath™ and 93% in BLEScath™ (P> 0.994). Failed attempts were lower in SurfCath™ (23%) in comparison to BLEScath™ (33%), but the difference was not statistically significant (P=0.708). Among operators, 90% found SurfCath™ very easy/relatively easy to use compared to 43% of users reflecting the same degree of use with BLEScath™ (P=.021). There was no difference in adverse events.

Conclusion

This is the first study in Canada to report MIST with purpose-built catheters. Overall, the success rate was equally high with both catheters. Users subjectively reported higher ease of use with SurfCath™. Commercially available purpose-built catheters should facilitate universal adaptation of the MIST method.

Neonates
respiratory distress syndrome
surfactant
This study did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.
==== Body
pmcIntroduction

Respiratory distress syndrome (RDS) is one of the major morbidities in Neonatal Intensive Care Units (NICU). Premature neonates develop RDS due to their limited ability to produce endogenous surfactant.1,2 Surfactant replacement therapy is one of the standard treatments for RDS. Traditionally, the Intubation, Surfactant Administration and Extubation (In-Su-RE) method has been used to facilitate intra-tracheal surfactant delivery and has been shown to reduce the need for mechanical ventilation.3,4 However, over the last decade, surfactant administration via thin catheters in spontaneously breathing neonates has become increasingly popular as it precludes the need for endotracheal intubation and positive pressure ventilation. This method is often referred to as Minimally Invasive Surfactant Administration (MIST) or Less Invasive Surfactant Administration (LISA).5–7

A growing body of literature has demonstrated MIST/LISA to be feasible and safe in premature neonates.7,8 A recent network meta-analysis comparing In-Su-RE and MIST/LISA demonstrated that the latter technique was associated with a significantly lower mortality rate, need for mechanical ventilation, bronchopulmonary dysplasia, and periventricular leukomalacia.9 Although MIST is widely accepted as a primary mode of surfactant administration in some neonatal centers, considerable variation exists regarding procedural aspects. These include the choice of premedication, catheter choice, and post-procedural support.10,11

Studies report the use of widely varying types of catheters (e.g., nasogastric catheters, suction catheters, and vascular catheters) for MIST.12 In Europe, purpose-built catheters for MIST have been used in the last 5 years.12 In Canada, purpose-built catheters have only recently received approval for use. However, limited data are available on the use of these types of catheters. More data regarding procedural success, adverse effects, and end-user experience with these purpose-built catheters are needed to optimize clinical practice and direct future product design and development. Therefore, we designed this study to describe the local experience with two different purpose-built catheters (BLEScath™ and SurfCath™) for MIST.

Methods

This was a retrospective cohort study of neonates who received surfactant via MIST using any of the two purpose-built catheters (BLEScath™ and SurfCath™) approved for use in a tertiary-level NICU in Southwestern Ontario. The institutional ethics board approved the study (HSREB no.119981). The aim of this study was to describe procedural success, adverse events, and user experience pertaining to the two different types of purpose build catheters for surfactant administration.

Study Eligibility Criteria

All neonates who received MIST by a purpose-built catheter from January 1, 2021, to March 31, 2022, were included (see Table 1). We excluded neonates who received surfactant by IN-Su-RE method, received surfactant by MIST using non-purpose-built catheters [angiocath, multiaccess catheter (MAC)] and neonates suspected to have chromosomal or congenital anomalies.

162524 Table 1. Baseline demographic and clinical characteristics.

	BLEScath™ (n=15)	SurfCath™ (n=22)	P-⁠value	
Gestational Age, M (SD)	31.33 (3.16)	31.05 (3.27)	0.791	
Birth weight, M (SD)	1823.33 (723.13)	1613.23 (703.88)	0.384	
Mode of delivery, n (%)			0.373	
Vaginal	4 (27)	9 (41)		
C-section	11 (73)	13 (59)		
Sex, n (%)			0.247	
Male	11 (73)	12 (55)		
Female	4 (27)	10 (46)		
Antenatal Steroids, n (%)			0.762	
None	5 (33)	6 (27)		
Incomplete	5 (33)	6 (27)		
Complete	5 (33)	10 (46)		
Maternal Chorioamnionitis, n (%)			0.505	
No	15 (100)	20 (91)		
Yes	0	2 (9)		
Apgar at 5, M (SD)	7.40 (1.30)	6.86 (1.89)	0.345	
APGAR at 10, M (SD)	8.27 (0.91)	7.87 (0.99)	0.295	
Post Natal Age at Surfactant Delivery (hours of life), M (SD)	8.29 (5.89)	11.52 (13.66)	0.395	
FiO2 Prior to Surfactant Delivery, M (SD)	40.14 (9.79)	35.95 (12.56)	0.298	
PEEP before MIST, M (SD)	7.50 (1.02)	8.41 (2.84)	0.259	
PIP before Mist, M (SD)	17.64 (1.12)	15.65 (3.12)	0.054	
Premedication given, n (%)				
Atropine	15 (100)	22 (100)	-	
Fentanyl	15 (100)	22 (100)	-	
Sucrose	8 (53)	17 (77)	0.164	
Operator Completing MIST, n (%)			0.018*	
Respiratory therapist ( RT)	5 (33)	16 (73)		
Neonatal Fellow	8 (53)	6 (27)		
Neonatologist	2 (13)	0		
Abbreviations: PEEP – positive end-expiratory pressure; PIP – Peak Inspiratory Pressure; MIST – Minimally Invasive Surfactant Therapy.

MIST procedure Details

In our institute, MIST procedure was recommended as the first option for surfactant administration in spontaneously breathing neonates with a gestational age of ≥ 26 weeks gestation and RDS (FiO2 >/=0.30 on non-invasive positive pressure ventilatory (NIPPV) support with a Mean Airway Pressure (MAP) of ≥ 8 cm H20). Neonates with poor respiratory drive (defined as >3 apneic episodes in the hour preceding surfactant delivery), hemodynamic instability (hypotension), birth asphyxia, and major congenital anomalies were not considered suitable candidates for MIST. Premedication with fentanyl 0.5 mcg/kg intravenous (IV) and Atropine 20 mcg/kg IV was recommended, and the use of oral sucrose was encouraged.

Trained physicians (subspecialty residents/staff neonatologists) and respiratory therapists (RT) performed the procedure. Neonates were positioned in a sniffing position and received nasal intermittent positive pressure ventilation (NIPPV) using nasal prongs for the entire procedure.

The depth of catheter insertion was 6 cm + weight in kilogram (kg) as measured from the lip. Cords were visualized either using direct laryngoscopy or through video laryngoscope. Bovine Lipid Extract Surfactant (BLES®) at 5 ml/kg was administered slowly over 1 to 3 minutes, synchronizing instillation with the neonate’s inspiration efforts. After successful catheter placement, the laryngoscope and catheter were withdrawn, and attempts were made to keep the neonate’s mouth closed to facilitate continued delivery of positive airway pressure. Post-procedure, stomach contents were aspirated via a nasogastric/orogastric tube to check for accidental instillation in the esophagus and to assess for substantial pharyngeal reflux. As per the institutional protocol, there were a maximum of three attempts. Attempts were defined as any introduction of a laryngoscope blade followed by removal regardless of the successful catheter placement. Failed attempts refer to failure to place intratracheal catheter or displacement of the placed catheter without completing surfactant delivery.

MIST Catheter Description

Since introducing MIST to our NICU in 2016, the local quality improvement committee has monitored its safe and effective implementation. Under the committee’s guidance, commercially available purpose-built catheters (BLEScath™ and SurfCath™) were assessed in the NICU using predesigned forms that collected procedural data and user ease. Then, the catheters were introduced one by one in specific and equivalent periods.

BLEScath™ is 205 mm long, 5 FR with integrated stainless steel (SS) stylet that is anchored and remains fixed in place, with 7-10 cm marking on the catheter to determine tip-to-lip distance. Manufacturers state that the SS stylet allows the catheter to be bent into the user’s preferred shape. Additional distal tip markings (2/2.5/3.5 cm) aid in determining the catheter insertion depth at the vocal cords. The tip of the catheter is soft and rounded to reduce tissue trauma during insertion (Figure 1a).13

SurfCath™ is a 20 cm, 6 FR tube made of a thermoplastic material anatomically designed with a 2 cm black tip at a 30-degree angle. The catheter is transparent, with clear markings for each centimetre, and the material is semi-rigid but bendable (Figure 1b). In addition, it has an extra soft tip to reduce damage to the vocal cords.14

162525 Figure 1a and 1b. Purpose-built Catheters for MIST.

Data Collection

Baseline demographic characteristics were collected from patient charts, including gestational age, weight, antenatal steroids, maternal chorioamnionitis, mode of delivery, resuscitation details and respiratory support prior to the procedure. Data regarding the procedure were extracted from the completed procedural forms. They included the type of catheter, type of operator, premeditations used, number of attempts, successful delivery of surfactant, oxygen requirement post surfactant, the subsequent need for mechanical ventilation and/or the need for a second dose of surfactant.

Data were also collected regarding complications, including apneas, desaturations (oxygen saturation < 85%), bradycardia (heart rate <100 beats/min), need to use Positive Pressure Ventilation (PPV)/need to intubate during the procedure, and air-leak. Our primary outcome of interest was procedural success, defined as intratracheal delivery of the full intended dose of surfactant with minimal to no surfactant recovered on post-procedure gastric aspiration. Our secondary outcomes included a number of attempts to achieve procedural success and procedural ease of use, where users rate their experience as very easy, relatively easy, neither easy nor difficult, somewhat difficult or very difficult.

Statistical Analysis

Continuous variables were summarized using means (SDs), and group comparisons were conducted using independent t-tests. Categorical variables were summarized using frequencies (%), and group comparisons were conducted using chi-square tests (or Fisher’s exact chi-square, when appropriate). P-values < 0.05 were considered statistically significant, and SPSS v.26 (IBM Corp., Armonk, NY, USA) was used to conduct all analyses.

Results

A total of 37 neonates received MIST during the study period. BLEScath™ was used in 15 neonates, and SurfCath™ was used in 22 neonates. Baseline patient characteristics are described in Table 1. The type of operators differed in the two groups, with a higher proportion of RT operators in the SurfCath™ group.

Procedure success rate, ease of use and adverse effects are summarized in Table 2. The procedural success was 93% in the BLEScath™ group and 91% in the SurfCath™ group (P >0.994). Multiple attempts to successfully administer the surfactant were required in 33% of BLEScath™ and 23% of SurfCath™ (P=0.708). Response to surfactant was noticed in 75% of the BLEScath™ group compared to 91% of the SurfCath™ Group (P=0.300). 90% of neonates in the SurfCath™ group were weaned to room air within 24 hours compared to 63% in the BLEScath™ group (P=0.123).

162526 Table 2. Comparison of procedural success and adverse events.

	BLEScath™ (n=15)	SurfCath™ (n=22)	P-⁠value	
Procedural Details	
Successfully deliver full amount of surfactant, n (%)	14 (93)	20 (91)	>0.994	
Amount of surfactant in gastric aspirate, n (%)			0.443	
None	4 (44)	13 (59)		
Minimal	3 (33)	8 (36)		
Moderate	1 (11)	1 (5)		
Most	1 (11)	0		
Failed attempts (multiple attempts needed for success), n (%)	5 (33)	5 (23)	0.708	
^Number of failed attempts, M (SD)	0.47 (0.74)	0.27 (0.55)	0.368	
1, n (%)	3 (60)	4 (80)	>0.994	
2, n (%)	2 (40)	1 (20)		
Clinical Response to Surfactant, n (%)	6 (75)	19 (91)	0.300	
Successful weaning to room air within 24 hours, n (%)	5 (63)	18 (90)	0.123	
Need for second dose of surfactant, n (%)	3 (20)	6 (27)	0.711	
Ease of use of catheter, n (%)			0.021*	
Very easy

	2 (14)	11 (52)		
Relatively easy

	4 (29)	8 (38)		
Neither easy nor difficult

	3 (21)	1 (5)		
Somewhat difficult

	4 (29)	1 (5)		
Very difficult

	1 (7)	0		
Procedural Adverse effects during the procedure, n (%)				
Apnea	9 (60)	10 (46)	0.385	
Bradycardia	0	0	-	
Desaturation	9 (60)	17 (77)	0.295	
Need of PPV	1 (7)	0	0.405	
Need of Intubation	0	0	-	
Post-procedure complications, n (%)				
Air leak	2 (13)	3 (14)	>0.994	
Intubation in 1 week	3 (20)	7 (32)	0.426	
Abbreviations: PPV – positive pressure ventilation

Desaturation was the most frequently observed adverse event during the procedure; it was reported in 60% of the BLEScath™ group and 77% of the SurfCath™ Group (P=0.29). The next frequent adverse event was apnea, which occurred in 60% of the BLEScath™ group and 46% of the SurfCath™ group. For post-procedural complications, air leak occurred in two neonates in the BLEScath™ group and three in the SurfCath™ group (P>0.994).

On analyzing user experience, 52% of operators using SurfCath™ felt it was “very easy” to use compared to only 14% of operators of BLEScath™. Thirty-three percent of BLEScath™ users felt it to be “somewhat difficult” and “very difficult,” whereas only 5% of SurfCath™ users reported difficulty (P=0.021).

Discussion

Our center has practiced MIST since 2016 and remains one of the most experienced units with this technique in Canada. Different catheters for surfactant delivery have been used locally over the last six years. We have previously reported our earlier experience with off-label catheters such as 16G Angiocath and Multiaccess Catheters (MAC).5 Purpose-built catheters have recently been approved for use in Canada and introduced in our unit under careful evaluation for safety and efficacy by the local quality improvement committee, which allowed us to describe our experience with these catheters in this retrospective study. We report high procedural success with both catheters without any significant differences in procedural execution or procedural adverse effects. Subjective assessment of operator ease of use appears to be higher with SurfCath™ compared to BLEScath™. Overall procedural success with the purpose-built catheters appears to be comparable to our previous experience with non-purpose-built catheters in which we reported a success rate of around 90%,5 which is slightly higher than other studies using non-purpose-built catheters in which the overall success rate ranges from 73-89%.15–19

There is considerable variation in the choice of catheter for MIST. A recent survey of MIST use in Canada reported that 47% of centers using MIST utilize Angiocatheter to deliver surfactant, whereas 41% use purpose-built catheters.20 Some centers still report the use of feeding tubes. Among the centers that do not use MIST, 22% cited the lack of availability of purpose-built catheters as the reason for the non-implementation of MIST. A US survey published in 2019 reported that 46% of physicians used feeding tubes for surfactant administration, 20% used angiocatheters (Hobart method), 4% used umbilical catheters, and 30% used other methods that were not specified.

Purpose-built catheters offer many advantages over traditionally used catheters and will undoubtedly increase institutional uptake and adaptation of MIST. The advantages of purpose-built catheters include markings/graduations to guide depth of insertion, rigidity to facilitate negotiating through cords without using Magill’s forceps, atraumatic design to protect the airway, and curvature to adapt to neonatal airway anatomy. BLEScath™ has an inbuilt stylet designed to add rigidity to a pliable tube. Manufacturers describe SurfCath™ as semi-rigid but bendable.13,14 Despite the differences in design, the overall success rate was similar with both catheters.

The number of failed attempts in the BLEScath™ group was higher than in the SurfCath™ group (33% vs 23%), but this difference was not statistically significant. Immediate response to surfactant was noticed more in the SurfCath™ group. A higher number of neonates were weaned to room air by 24 hours in the SurfCath™ group, but these differences were not statistically significant. The subjective reporting of ease of use favoured SurfCath™, with more operators reporting improved ease of use with SurfCath™. On qualitative assessments of procedural forms, we noted user comments related to the too-pliable nature of BLEScath™ as a recurring theme that interfered with operators’ perceived ease of use.

Interestingly, Rigo et al. investigated different devices used for LISA and found that more rigid catheters, such as the Angiocath, permitted faster laryngeal catheterization than gastric tubes. In the same study, the subjective ease of use of rigid catheters was also reported to be better.21 In 2018, Fabbri et al. described the clinical impressions of neonatologists who simulated LISA on an extremely premature manikin to compare the new purpose-built LISAcath and the commonly used Angiocath. Results of this study showed that the neonatologists preferred LISAcath rather than Angiocath and perceived it to be the safer option.22 While the rigidity of a catheter may offer procedural benefits, a balance between pliability and rigidity should be considered to avoid accidental airway injury. We have reported a case of airway injury and pneumomediastinum after MIST with semi-rigid 16G Angiocatheter.23

Regarding adverse events during the procedure, we noticed that desaturation was the most frequently reported event, followed by apnea. Interestingly, most of these events spontaneously improved with gentle stimulation. We only reported one case that required positive pressure ventilation during the procedure, and none required intubation during the procedure. The rate of air leak (pneumothorax and pneumomediastinum) in this cohort ranged from 13% in BLEScath™ vs 14% in SurfCath™ without any significant difference between the two groups. Pneumothorax rates alone are reported to be 5.5% with MIST methods and 9% with IN-Su-RE. While our rates of air leak are slightly higher, this may be because of including both pneumothorax and pneumomediastinum in the definition of air leak.24 In our cohort, the rate of needing intubation for any reason within one week of MIST was 20% in the BLEScath™ group and 30% in the SurfCath™ group without any significant difference. These rates are similar to that found in the literature, citing that the need for intubation for mechanical ventilation within 72 hours of the MIST procedure is around 22.8%, and the need for any mechanical ventilation during NICU stay is around 49%.24

We acknowledge that our study is limited by its retrospective design and small sample size. Our secondary outcome related to ease of use was subjective in nature and prone to bias. The distribution of operators was different in the two catheter groups with more RTs using the SurfCath™, which could potentially lead to confounding bias. Additionally, the catheters were introduced sequentially, not simultaneously; hence, cumulative operator experience could be a factor in the perceived ‘ease of use.’ Lastly, we did not address cost and other financial implications.

Conclusion

This is the first study in Canada to report the experience of MIST with purpose-built catheters. Overall, the success rate was equally high in both catheters. Users subjectively reported higher ease of use with SurfCath™ compared to BLEScath™. Commercially available purpose-built catheters should facilitate universal adaptation of the MIST method. Our reports regarding operator experience may help optimize future product design to improve ease of use.

Contributors

TA was involved in data collection and manuscript preparation. MM was involved in data analysis and interpretation. ODS helped design the study and in manuscript preparation. SB was responsible for the conception of the study, study design, data collection, interpretation and manuscript preparation. All authors have approved the final version.

Competing interests

All authors have completed the ICMJE uniform disclosure form; ODS received professional consulting fees from BLES Biochemical Inc. in the past. BLES Biochemical Inc. did not fund the study nor have any influence in the design, data collection, and interpretation of the results. The surfactant maker did not review or revise the manuscript submitted for publication. No catheter manufacturer had any influence in the study design, data collection and interpretation of the result. Other authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.

Ethical approval

The REB approved the study (HSREB no.119981).

Acknowledgments

We would like to acknowledge the help of Dr. Natasha Lepore for assisting with the data collection for this project. We extend our gratitude to the Division of Neonatal-Perinatal Medicine and the healthcare team.
==== Refs
Neonatal Respiratory Distress Syndrome StatPearls Yadav S. Lee B. Kamity R. StatPearls Publishing Treasure Island (FL) 2022
2022-1-21 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK560779/
Respiratory distress syndrome (RDS) in premature infants is underscored by the magnitude of Th1 cytokine polarization Cytokine Varvarigou Anastasia A. Thomas Iason Rodi Maria Economou Ioulia Mantagos Stefanos Mouzaki Athanasia 6 2012
58 3 355 360 1043-4666 10.1016/j.cyto.2012.03.005 10.1016/j.cyto.2012.03.005 22465043
[Surfactant treatment of newborn infants with respiratory distress syndrome primarily treated with nasal continuous positive air pressure. A pilot study] Ugeskr Laeger Verder H. Agertoft L. Albertsen P. Christensen N.C. Curstedt T. Ebbesen F.. 7 1992
154 31 2136 2139 1509593
Early surfactant administration with brief ventilation vs. selective surfactant and continued mechanical ventilation for preterm infants with or at risk for respiratory distress syndrome Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews Stevens Timothy P. Blennow Mats Myers Eliza H Soll Roger 17 10 2007
4 CD003063 1465-1858 10.1002/14651858.cd003063.pub3 10.1002/14651858.cd003063.pub3 17943779
Impact of Catheter Choice on Procedural Success of Minimally Invasive Surfactant Therapy American Journal of Perinatology Bhattacharya Soume Read Brooke Miller Michael Silva Orlando da 24 9 2021
2022-1-21 0735-1631 10.1055/s-0041-1733956 10.1055/s-0041-1733956
High-volume surfactant administration using a minimally invasive technique: Experience from a Canadian Neonatal Intensive Care Unit Paediatrics & Child Health Bhattacharya Soume Read Brooke McGovern Evelyn da Silva Orlando 2019
24 5 313 317 1205-7088 10.1093/pch/pxy162 10.1093/pch/pxy162 31379432
Update of minimally invasive surfactant therapy Korean Journal of Pediatrics Shim Gyu-Hong 2017
60 9 273 281 1738-1061 10.3345/kjp.2017.60.9.273 10.3345/kjp.2017.60.9.273 29042870
A pilot study of less invasive surfactant administration in very preterm infants in a Chinese tertiary center BMC Pediatrics Bao Yingying Zhang Guolian Wu Mingyuan Ma Lixin Zhu Jiajun 14 3 2015
15 1 21 1471-2431 10.1186/s12887-015-0342-7 10.1186/s12887-015-0342-7 25885964
Comparative efficacy of methods for surfactant administration: a network meta-analysis Archives of Disease in Childhood - Fetal and Neonatal Edition Bellos Ioannis Fitrou Georgia Panza Raffaella Pandita Aakash 15 1 2021
106 5 474 487 1359-2998 10.1136/archdischild-2020-319763 10.1136/archdischild-2020-319763
Less-Invasive Surfactant Administration for Neonatal Respiratory Distress Syndrome: A Consensus Guideline Neonatology Reynolds Peter Bustani Porus Darby Colm Fernandez Alvarez Jose Ramon Fox Grenville Jones Steve Robertson Sara Jane Vasu Vimal Roehr Charles Christoph 2021
118 5 586 592 1661-7800 10.1159/000518396 10.1159/000518396 34515188
Guidelines for surfactant replacement therapy in neonates | Canadian Paediatric Society Canadian Paediatric Society 2022-1-24 https://cps.ca/en/documents//position//guidelines-for-surfactant-replacement-therapy-in-neonates/ Available from:
Less invasive surfactant administration: best practices and unanswered questions Current Opinion in Pediatrics Herting Egbert Härtel Christoph Göpel Wolfgang 4 2020
32 2 228 234 1040-8703 10.1097/mop.0000000000000878 10.1097/mop.0000000000000878 32068592
Product Information | BLEScathTM 2023-1-24 https://blescath.com/product-information/ Available from:
SurfcathTM - Vygon 2023-1-24 https://vygon.co.uk/product/respiratory/surfcath/ Available from:
Implementation of less invasive surfactant administration in clinical practice—experience of a mid-sized country PloS One Szczapa Tomasz Hożejowski Roman Krajewski Paweł 6 7 2020
15 7 e0235363 1932-6203 10.1371/journal.pone.0235363 10.1371/journal.pone.0235363 32628732
Surfactant without intubation in preterm infants with respiratory distress: first multi-center data Klinische Pädiatrie Kribs A. Härtel C. Kattner E. Vochem M. Küster H. Möller J. Müller D. Segerer H. Wieg C. Gebauer C. Nikischin W. Wense A. Herting E. Roth B. Göpel W. 1 2010
222 1 13 17 0300-8630 10.1055/s-0029-1241867 10.1055/s-0029-1241867
Early administration of surfactant in spontaneous breathing with nCPAP: feasibility and outcome in extremely premature infants (postmenstrual age ≤27 weeks) Pediatric Anesthesia Kribs ANGELA Pillekamp FRANK Hünseler CHRISTOPH Vierzig ANNE Roth BERNHARD 4 2007
17 4 364 369 1155-5645 10.1111/j.1460-9592.2006.02126.x 10.1111/j.1460-9592.2006.02126.x 17359406
Surfactant Administration via Thin Catheter During Spontaneous Breathing: Randomized Controlled Trial Pediatrics Kanmaz H. Gozde Erdeve Omer Canpolat F. Emre Mutlu Banu Dilmen Ugur 1 2 2013
131 2 e502 e509 0031-4005 10.1542/peds.2012-0603 10.1542/peds.2012-0603
The OPTIMIST-A trial: evaluation of minimally-invasive surfactant therapy in preterm infants 25–28 weeks gestation BMC Pediatrics Dargaville Peter A Kamlin Camille Omar F De Paoli Antonio G Carlin John B Orsini Francesca Soll Roger F Davis Peter G 27 8 2014
14 1 213 1471-2431 10.1186/1471-2431-14-213 10.1186/1471-2431-14-213 25164872
A survey of minimally invasive surfactant therapy in Canada Canadian Journal of Respiratory Therapy Brahmbhatt Shaily Read Brooke Da Silva Orlando Bhattacharya Soume 28 7 2022
58 122 126 2368-6820 10.29390/cjrt-2022-011 10.29390/cjrt-2022-011 35950171
Rigid catheters reduced duration of less invasive surfactant therapy procedures in manikins Acta Paediatrica Rigo V Debauche C Maton P Broux I Van Laere D 2 5 2017
106 7 1091 1096 0803-5253 10.1111/apa.13850 10.1111/apa.13850
Five-country manikin study found that neonatologists preferred using the LISAcath rather than the Angiocath for less invasive surfactant administration Acta Paediatrica Fabbri Laura Klebermass-Schrehof Katrin Aguar Marta Harrison Catherine Gulczyńska Ewa Santoro Debora Di Castri Marco Rigo Vincent 25 1 2018
107 5 780 783 0803-5253 10.1111/apa.14214 10.1111/apa.14214 29315806
Airway injury and pneumomediastinum associated with less invasive surfactant administration in a premature neonate: a case report BMC Pediatrics Altamimi Talal Read Brooke da Silva Orlando Bhattacharya Soume 10 11 2021
21 1 500 1471-2431 10.1186/s12887-021-02981-w 10.1186/s12887-021-02981-w 34758781
Less invasive surfactant administration versus intubation for surfactant delivery in preterm infants with respiratory distress syndrome: a systematic review and meta-analysis Archives of Disease in Childhood - Fetal and Neonatal Edition Aldana-Aguirre Jose C Pinto Merlin Featherstone Robin M Kumar Manoj 2017
102 1 F17 F23 1359-2998 10.1136/archdischild-2015-310299 10.1136/archdischild-2015-310299 27852668
