Skip to Content
A home for paediatricians. A voice for children and youth.

Position statement

CPS

Guidelines for surfactant replacement therapy in neonates

Posted: Feb 1, 2021

The Canadian Paediatric Society gives permission to print single copies of this document from our website. For permission to reprint or reproduce multiple copies, please see our copyright policy.

Principal author(s)

Eugene Ng, Vibhuti Shah; Canadian Paediatric Society, Fetus and Newborn Committee

Paediatr Child Health 2021 26(1):35-41.

Abstract

Abstract

Surfactant replacement therapy (SRT) plays a pivotal role in the management of neonates with respiratory distress syndrome (RDS) because it improves survival and reduces respiratory morbidities. With the increasing use of non-invasive ventilation as the primary mode of respiratory support for preterm infants at delivery, prophylactic surfactant is no longer beneficial. For infants with worsening RDS, early rescue surfactant should be provided. While the strategy to intubate, give surfactant, and extubate (INSURE) has been widely accepted in clinical practice, newer methods of non-invasive surfactant administration, using thin catheter, laryngeal mask airway, or nebulization, are being adopted or investigated. Use of SRT as an adjunct for conditions other than RDS, such as meconium aspiration syndrome, may be effective based on limited evidence.

Keywords: Bronchopulmonary dysplasia; Neonates; Non-invasive ventilation; Preterm infants; Respiratory distress syndrome; Surfactant

Decades of clinical trials and systematic reviews have established the unequivocal benefits of surfactant replacement therapy (SRT) for neonates with respiratory distress syndrome (RDS) [1]-[9]. Irrespective of the strategy or product used, surfactant has been shown to decrease the need for ventilation support, risk of pulmonary air leak, mortality, and the combined outcome of death or bronchopulmonary dysplasia (BPD) at 28 days [10], without increasing adverse neurodevelopmental outcomes [11][12]. However, there remain a number of questions related to how surfactant should be used in light of advances in other aspects of neonatal care, such as the use of non-invasive respiratory support from birth and the availability of new techniques for administering surfactant. This update is necessary to guide clinical practice in the current era.

Methods of statement development

A search of MEDLINE, including Epubs ahead of print, in-process, and other non-indexed citations (1946 to May 1, 2019), Embase (1974 to May 1, 2019), and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (May 1, 2019) was performed, using the OVID interface. Search terms included: ‘surfactant’, ‘lung surfactant extract’, ‘artificial lung surfactant’, ‘respiratory tract agent’, ‘neonatal respiratory distress syndrome’, ‘respiratory distress syndrome, newborn’ ‘hyaline membrane disease’, ‘newborn infant’, ‘pneumonia/or aspiration pneumonia’, ‘meconium aspiration’, ‘lung hemorrhage’, ‘respiratory tract intubation/or assisted ventilation’, ‘medical nebulizer’, ‘Less invasive*’, ‘Minimally invasive*’, ‘laryngeal mask’. Reference lists of publications and guidelines were reviewed. All relevant Cochrane reviews were included.

The hierarchy of evidence from the Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine (CEBM) (Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine 2014: http://www.cebm.net) was applied to the publications identified. Recommendations are based on the format by Shekelle et al [13].

Prophylactic versus selective surfactant treatment

Prophylactic use of surfactant refers to a strategy of providing exogenous surfactant at birth to infants at risk for RDS [9], with the aim of preventing severe RDS from developing. Selective use of surfactant refers to a strategy of providing exogenous surfactant to infants with established RDS. Both strategies have been shown to be effective, but with increasing use of continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) in the delivery room stabilization of preterm infants, the benefit of prophylactic surfactant is being questioned [14]-[16].

While earlier trials without routine use of CPAP at birth showed significant benefits of prophylactic surfactant in reducing mortality and air leak in preterm infants, one systematic review [9] which included two recent clinical trials mandating routine use of CPAP in the delivery room [17][18] found that the benefit of prophylactic surfactant could no longer be demonstrated. Rather, this study observed a worrisome trend toward increasing mortality, bronchopulmonary dysplasia (BPD) at 28 days and 36 weeks, and BPD or death at 36 weeks with the use of prophylactic surfactant. Also, in the three trials where rates of antenatal steroids exposure were high (>50%) [17]-[19], prophylactic surfactant was associated with a significant increase in BPD, BPD or death at 28 days, and a trend toward increasing mortality, BPD, and BPD or death (Level 1a evidence).

How should surfactant be used in preterm infants on non-invasive respiratory support from birth?

Should infants be intubated or not?

While studies have shown that avoidance of intubation and mechanical ventilation may contribute to reducing the rate of BPD [15][20], the question remains whether this new approach to respiratory care might deprive some infants of the proven benefits of expedient provision of exogenous surfactant [21]. Verder et al [22] were early advocates of the INSURE (INtubate, SURfactant, Extubate) technique. One of the first systematic reviews [23] to summarize evidence for the INSURE technique suggested that it may reduce need for mechanical ventilation and lower the incidence of BPD and air leak compared with delayed selective surfactant and ongoing mechanical ventilation. Subsequent to this review, several large trials have included CPAP use in the delivery room. They compared prophylactic surfactant via INSURE with CPAP use in the delivery room and provided surfactant via INSURE only to infants with clinical signs of RDS. Trial results have demonstrated that the latter strategy is safe and that it may reduce the number of infants intubated and given surfactant [18][19][24]. A recent systematic review by Isayama et al [25] compared INSURE with CPAP alone, and showed no statistically significant difference between the two strategies in altering the incidence of BPD or death at 36 weeks, BPD, death, air leak, severe intraventricular hemorrhage (IVH), neurodevelopmental impairment (NDI), and death or NDI. However, the relative risk estimates appear to trend in favour of INSURE over CPAP alone, particularly in the outcomes of BPD or death, BPD, and air leak. These studies suggest that use of nasal CPAP shortly after birth as the primary mode of respiratory support is an acceptable alternative to elective intubation and administration of prophylactic surfactant. However, the criteria for surfactant administration in infants initially supported by CPAP are less clear (Level 1a evidence).

One potential issue with INSURE is the perceived difficulty with extubation for selected infants, even without the influence of premedication. In a 2015 systematic review, pooled estimates from six randomized controlled trials (RCTs) showed that over 90% of infants were successfully extubated within one hour of INSURE [25]. Risk factors associated with failure to extubate after INSURE include lower gestational age (GA), lower Apgar score at 5 minutes, and FiO2 >0.5 before surfactant [26]. Concerns about lung injury remain, however, even with brief mechanical ventilation [27]. Therefore, alternative modes of surfactant administration are needed and some of these are discussed below.

Early versus delayed surfactant

The timing of surfactant administration for preterm infants intubated for RDS was examined in one systematic review [8] that compared early (within the first 2 h of age) to late surfactant administration (delayed until RDS was established, usually 2 h or beyond). Meta-analyses of six randomized trials showed that early surfactant was associated with a significant decrease in mortality, BPD at 36 weeks, BPD or death at 36 weeks, and reduction in the risk of air leak, with no increase in the risk for pulmonary hemorrhage or severe IVH. Similar findings were noted in two trials of more preterm (<30 weeks GA) infants, showing the benefits of early surfactant in reducing mortality and BPD or death at 36 weeks [28][29]. A number of studies comparing early to late surfactant, as defined by oxygen requirement thresholds, suggest that low (FiO2 0.30 to 0.50) versus high (FiO2 >0.55) thresholds incur more benefit by providing surfactant earlier—before the development of more severe RDS—without increasing the rate of intubation significantly [22][30][31]. This finding held especially in infants born to mothers who received two doses of antenatal corticosteroids. In one systematic review published in 2007, analysis based on oxygen requirement criteria showed that a lower threshold (FiO2 ≤0.45) for intubation and surfactant administration was associated with less air leak and BPD compared with an FiO2 threshold >0.45 [23]. Further, two large randomized trials that did not allow infants initially managed with CPAP to receive surfactant until an FiO2 threshold of 0.6 was reached demonstrated higher rates of pneumothorax compared with those who were intubated and given surfactant early [24][32] (Level 1a evidence).

Use of surfactant before inter-facility transport of preterm infants was found to be associated with lower oxygen requirement during transport and shorter duration of ventilation support, compared with controls [33] (Level 4 evidence).

What type of surfactant is preferable – Natural or synthetic?

Surfactant, no matter which form, has been shown to be efficacious in the treatment of RDS. Surfactant is a complex structure that is mainly composed of dipalmitoylphosphatidylcholine (DPPC) and surfactant protein (SP-) A, B, C and D [34]. SP-B and SP-C are two hydrophobic proteins that play important roles in adsorption and distribution of DPPC. A plethora of systematic reviews since the late 1990s have summarized the vast literature on the many clinical trials comparing effects of different types of surfactant.

Synthetic surfactants

First-generation synthetic surfactants are composed of DPPC without surfactant proteins, and they are less effective in reducing ventilation support, pneumothorax, and mortality compared with animal-derived surfactants [4]. The only second-generation synthetic surfactant ever tested in infants is lucinactant (Surfaxin), which contains two phospholipids, a fatty acid, and a hydrophobic synthetic peptide to mimic SP-B (KL4). Lucinactant was withdrawn from the market in 2015 preceding trials of its aerosolized form [34]. A phase II trial of a third-generation synthetic surfactant that includes DPPC and analogs of SP-B and SP-C (CHF5633) is currently underway.

Animal-derived surfactants

A wide variety of animal-derived or natural surfactants are available for use, and many clinical trials have been conducted to compare the efficacy of different preparations. One systematic review of 13 RCTs associated administering animal-derived surfactant to infants with established RDS with significant improvement in oxygenation, ventilation requirements, and reduction of air leak, mortality before hospital discharge, and in death or BPD at 28 days, compared with placebo [6]. Another systematic review included 16 trials comparing different animal-derived surfactants [7]. While the two types of bovine surfactant preparations were comparable in reducing death or BPD, meta-analysis showed that porcine surfactant was more effective than bovine surfactant in reducing mortality before discharge, death or BPD at 36 weeks, and need for re-dosing. In the subgroup analyses, the benefit of porcine surfactant was only observed when given in the higher dose (>100 mg/kg) range. One recent trial [35] comparing bovine lipid extract surfactant (BLES) to porcine minced lung extract (poractant) in 87 preterm infants <32 weeks GA who required surfactant within 48 h of age, found that poractant was more effective in reducing duration of supplemental oxygen and appeared to trend toward less BPD in survivors. However, a trend toward increased mortality associated with the use of poractant was also noted, although these deaths were not respiratory-related.

In summary, animal-derived and the newer generation synthetic surfactants are both effective for treating RDS and improving survival without BPD. When comparing different animal-derived surfactants, emerging evidence suggests that porcine minced lung extract, especially in higher dose, may be superior to bovine surfactant for improving acute respiratory status and reducing mortality or BPD in infants with RDS (Level 1a evidence).

Dosing and re-dosing surfactant

Generally accepted practice at the present time is to repeat doses of surfactant only when there is evidence of ongoing RDS based on ventilation and oxygen requirements. Kattwinkel et al [36] studied the effects of re-dosing at low (FiO2­ >0.3 and still requiring intubation) versus high (FiO2 >0.4 and needing mean airway pressure >7cm H2O) thresholds, both at least 6 h after the first dose. Their results suggested that delaying re-dosing of surfactant until the infant requires escalated respiratory support is acceptable, except when RDS is complicated by sepsis or perinatal hypoxic-ischemic injury. Moreover, the size of the initial dose might be an important factor to consider in this context. One study involving poractant [37] showed that a higher initial dose (200 mg/kg) was more effective in reducing oxygen requirement, need for re-dosing, and mortality by 36 weeks corrected GA. Poractant is the only product that is concentrated enough to create such a high dose in a reasonable intratracheal volume [38] (Level 1b evidence).

Newer techniques of surfactant administration

One meta-narrative review in 2014 of less invasive surfactant administration methods (specifically thin catheter, laryngeal mask airway, pharyngeal route, and nebulization), demonstrated that there is growing clinical interest in techniques that avoided mechanically ventilating infants with RDS [39].

Less invasive surfactant administration (LISA) and Minimally invasive surfactant treatment (MIST)

Administering surfactant through a thin catheter instead of an endotracheal tube (ETT) may combine the avoidance of mechanical ventilation with the benefits of early surfactant [40]. LISA was first described by Verder et al [41] as placing a small catheter in the trachea with a Magill forceps under direct laryngoscopy, while the infant continues on CPAP support. LISA is part of a complete strategy that also includes avoidance of positive pressure ventilation, use of antenatal steroids, early use of CPAP, and caffeine administration in the delivery room [40]. One recent systematic review of LISA versus INSURE included six trials of preterm infants between 23 and <34 weeks GA with RDS. This study demonstrated that LISA results in less need for mechanical ventilation, and in reduced death or BPD at 36 weeks, and reduced BPD at 36 weeks, in survivors [42]. Another systematic review compared mechanical ventilation with various non-invasive ventilation strategies in preterm infants (<33 weeks GA) with RDS in the first 24 h post-birth. Compared with mechanical ventilation or CPAP alone, LISA was the non-invasive strategy associated with the lowest likelihood of death or BPD at 36 weeks [43] (Level 2b evidence).

Dargaville et al modified the LISA technique by using a more rigid adult vascular catheter (thus avoiding Magill forceps), known as MIST or the Hobart procedure. Two observational trials of the MIST method [44][45] showed similar results to LISA, and a larger trial is currently underway [46].

Regarding the type of surfactant used, most trials of MIST and LISA used poractant [47] to minimize the volume of instillation. A recent trial comparing LISA to ETT administration of beractant, a modified bovine lung surfactant (4 mL/kg in preterm infants 26 to 32 weeks with RDS) reported similar effect of LISA in reducing the need for mechanical ventilation, although a high rate of surfactant reflux (66%) was reported [48]. One recent cohort study on the experience of LISA using BLES (5 mL/kg in preterm infants ³28 weeks GA) reported no serious adverse events, including  surfactant reflux [49]. Concerns have also been raised regarding the loss of surfactant in feeding tubes, which could be as high as two times that from an ETT [50][51]. One study reporting on 2-year outcomes in preterm infants <32 weeks GA given surfactant by LISA compared with INSURE showed no difference in respiratory morbidities, sensorineural deficits, or adverse neurodevelopmental issues [52].

Laryngeal mask airway (LMA)

A number of studies have reported the use of LMA for surfactant administration in higher GA (29 to 35 weeks) preterm infants, demonstrating that this method is feasible and, compared with surfactant given via ETT, may achieve better oxygenation and lower need for invasive ventilation [53]-[57]. The latter observation, however, may be confounded by the fact that LMA insertion does not require premedication, while INSURE does. A new approach using the LMA to guide a catheter for LISA or MIST has been described and shown to be feasible without overt adverse effect [58] (Level 2b evidence).

Pharyngeal surfactant

Pharyngeal surfactant administration allows distribution of surfactant to the air–fluid interface during spontaneous breathing. One large randomized controlled trial comparing pharyngeal surfactant to saline placebo found significant reduction in mortality, severity of RDS, and ventilation requirement [59]. However, study results were confounded by a significant number of infants from both groups who required subsequent intubation and surfactant, making it difficult to draw definite conclusions regarding the benefit of this approach of surfactant administration (Level 2b evidence).

Nebulization

The only truly non-invasive method of SRT is via nebulization. However, the effect of nebulized surfactant depends on a number of important factors, including optimal particle size (0.5 to 2.0 µm), stability of the substance after nebulization, and the loss of particles in relation to an effective dose [47]. Earlier clinical studies using jet nebulizers [60][61] did not show significant clinical benefits. One feasibility study of nebulized lucinactant used vibrating perforated membrane nebulizers [62], and demonstrated safety, tolerability, and some evidence of clinical effect with early treatment. A newer device can deliver higher doses of surfactant to the newborn’s lungs [63], and a recent study [64] of preterm infants with mild RDS, randomized to bubble CPAP with or without aerosolized poractant, showed reduced requirement for intubation in the higher GA subgroup (320 to 336 weeks) in favour of nebulization (Level 1b evidence).

Surfactant for respiratory conditions other than RDS

Meconium aspiration syndrome (MAS) and neonatal pneumonia

In MAS, SRT may ameliorate respiratory distress caused, in part, by natural surfactants being rendered inactive by meconium and plasma protein. There may also be a role for surfactant lavage, to remove meconium particles from an infant’s airways. One systematic review [65] included three small trials of surfactant diluted with saline to varying concentrations and used for lavage in term and late-preterm infants with MAS. No difference in mortality, need for extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO), development of pneumothorax, duration of ventilation, or length of stay, was demonstrated. However, surfactant lavage was associated with reducing the combined outcomes of death or need for ECMO (Level 2b evidence). Another systematic review [66] examined the role of SRT in MAS, and while it again showed no difference in mortality, air leak, duration of ventilation, and duration of supplemental oxygen, a significant decrease in the need for ECMO was evident (Level 2b evidence). For neonatal pneumonia, some clinicians may choose to administer surfactant based on similar principles, but there is no evidence to date to support the practice [67] (Level 5 evidence).

Pulmonary hemorrhage

One systematic review [68] of surfactant administration to term and preterm infants with pulmonary hemorrhage did not include a clinical trial. However, two small observational studies have suggested that administering surfactant after pulmonary hemorrhage may improve infant oxygenation index [69][70]. Of note, pulmonary hemorrhage can also be a complication of surfactant therapy [71] (Level 4 evidence).

Summary of recommendations

Based on the best available evidence, surfactant replacement in newborns can be recommended as follows:

  1. In neonatal care settings where continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) is routinely used to stabilize preterm infants, and when the rate of antenatal corticosteroid administration has been high (>50%), prophylactic surfactant is no longer recommended (Grade A).
  2. Non-invasive respiratory support (e.g., CPAP) should be provided to preterm infants with respiratory distress syndrome (RDS) from birth. Early surfactant should be provided for newborns with increasing severity of RDS, demonstrated by escalating or sustained levels of oxygen requirement and other clinical or radiological indications [72] (Grade B).
  3. Infants with RDS whose oxygen requirements exceed FiO2 of 0.5 should receive surfactant replacement therapy (Grade A).
  4. Intubated infants with RDS should receive exogenous surfactant before inter-facility transport (Grade B).
  5. Repeated dosing of surfactant should be provided to infants only when there is evidence of ongoing moderate to severe RDS (Grade A).
  6. For spontaneously breathing infants on CPAP with RDS, non-invasive methods of surfactant administration, such as LISA or MIST, are preferable. Factors such as clinician experience, optimal dosage, volume, and the types of surfactant available must be considered to optimize delivery method (Grade B).
  7. Surfactant replacement for infants with meconium aspiration syndrome or pulmonary hemorrhage may be considered at clinicians’ discretion (Grade B).

Acknowledgements

This position statement was reviewed by the Community Paediatrics Committee of the Canadian Paediatric Society.

CANADIAN PAEDIATRIC SOCIETY FETUS AND NEWBORN COMMITTEE

Members: Gabriel Altit MD, Nicole Anderson MD (Resident Member), Heidi Budden MD (Board Representative), Mireille Guillot MD (Resident member), Leonora Hendson MD (past member), Thierry Lacaze-Masmonteil MD, PhD (past Chair), Brigitte Lemyre MD, Souvik Mitra MD, Michael R. Narvey MD (Chair), Eugene Ng MD, Nicole Radziminski MD, Vibhuti Shah MD (past member)
Liaisons: Radha Chari MD, The Society of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists of Canada; James Cummings MD, Committee on Fetus and Newborn, American Academy of Pediatrics; William Ehman MD, College of Family Physicians of Canada; Danica Hamilton RN, Canadian Association of Neonatal Nurses; Chloë Joynt MD, CPS Neonatal-Perinatal Medicine Section Executive; Roxanne Laforge RN, Canadian Perinatal Programs Coalition; Chantal Nelson PhD, Public Health Agency of Canada; Eugene H. Ng MD, CPS Neonatal-Perinatal Medicine Section
Principal authors: Eugene Ng MD, Vibhuti Shah MD

References

  1. Soll R, Ozek E. Prophylactic protein free synthetic surfactant for preventing morbidity and mortality in preterm infants. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2010(1):CD001079.
  2. Soll RF. Surfactant therapy in the USA: Trials and current routines. Biol Neonate 1997;71 Suppl 1:1-7.
  3. Soll RF. Synthetic surfactant for respiratory distress syndrome in preterm infants. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2000(2):CD001149.
  4. Ardell S, Pfister RH, Soll R. Animal derived surfactant extract versus protein free synthetic surfactant for the prevention and treatment of respiratory distress syndrome. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2015;8:CD000144.
  5. Pfister RH, Soll R, Wiswell TE. Protein-containing synthetic surfactant versus protein-free synthetic surfactant for the prevention and treatment of respiratory distress syndrome. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2009(4):CD006180.
  6. Seger N, Soll R. Animal derived surfactant extract for treatment of respiratory distress syndrome. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2009(2):CD007836.
  7. Singh N, Halliday HL, Stevens TP, Suresh G, Soll R, Rojas-Reyes MX. Comparison of animal-derived surfactants for the prevention and treatment of respiratory distress syndrome in preterm infants. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2015(12):CD010249.
  8. Bahadue FL, Soll R. Early versus delayed selective surfactant treatment for neonatal respiratory distress syndrome. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2012;11:CD001456.
  9. Rojas-Reyes MX, Morley CJ, Soll R. Prophylactic versus selective use of surfactant in preventing morbidity and mortality in preterm infants. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2012(3):CD000510.
  10. Polin RA, Carlo WA; American Academy of Pediatrics, Committee on Fetus and Newborn. Surfactant replacement therapy for preterm and term neonates with respiratory distress. Pediatrics 2014;133(1):156-63.
  11. D'Angio CT, Sinkin RA, Stevens TP, et al. Longitudinal, 15-year follow-up of children born at less than 29 weeks' gestation after introduction of surfactant therapy into a region: Neurologic, cognitive, and educational outcomes. Pediatrics 2002;110(6):1094-102.
  12. Palta M, Sadek-Badawi M, Evans M, Weinstein MR, McGuinnes G. Functional assessment of a multicenter very low-birth-weight cohort at age 5 years. Newborn Lung Project. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med 2000;154(1):23-30.
  13. Shekelle PG, Woolf SH, Eccles M, Grimshaw J. Developing clinical guidelines. Western J Med 1999;170(6):348-51.
  14. Finer NN, Higgins R, Kattwinkel J, Martin RJ. Summary proceedings from the Apnea-of-Prematurity Group. Pediatrics 2006;117(3 Pt 2):S47-51.
  15. Gittermann MK, Fusch C, Gittermann AR, Regazzoni BM, Moessinger AC. Early nasal continuous positive airway pressure treatment reduces the need for intubation in very low birth weight infants. Eur J Pediatr 1997;156(5):384-8.
  16. Raghuram K, Mukerji A, Young J, et al. Surfactant utilization and short-term outcomes in an era of non-invasive respiratory support in Canadian neonatal intensive care units. J Perinatol 2017;37(9):1017-23.
  17. Dunn MS, Kaempf J, de Klerk A, et al. Randomized trial comparing 3 approaches to the initial respiratory management of preterm neonates. Pediatrics 2011;128(5):e1069-76.
  18. Finer NN, Carlo WA, Walsh MC, Rich W, Gantz MG, Laptook AR, et al. Early CPAP versus surfactant in extremely preterm infants. N Engl J Med. 2010;362(21):1970-9.
  19. Dunn MS, Shennan AT, Zayack D, Possmayer F. Bovine surfactant replacement therapy in neonates of less than 30 weeks' gestation: A randomized controlled trial of prophylaxis versus treatment. Pediatrics 1991;87(3):377-86.
  20. De Klerk AM, De Klerk RK. Nasal continuous positive airway pressure and outcomes of preterm infants. J Paediatr Child Health 2001;37(2):161-7.
  21. Dargaville PA, Gerber A, Johansson S, et al. Incidence and outcome of CPAP failure in preterm infants. Pediatrics 2016;138(1):e20153985.
  22. Verder H, Albertsen P, Ebbesen F, et al. Nasal continuous positive airway pressure and early surfactant therapy for respiratory distress syndrome in newborns of less than 30 weeks' gestation. Pediatrics 1999;103(2):E24.
  23. Stevens TP, Harrington EW, Blennow M, Soll RF. 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 Syst Rev 2007(4):CD003063.
  24. Morley CJ, Davis PG, Doyle LW, Brion LP, Hascoet JM, Carlin JB; COIN Trial Investigators. Nasal CPAP or intubation at birth for very preterm infants. N Engl J Med 2008;358(7):700-8.
  25. Isayama T, Chai-Adisaksopha C, McDonald SD. Noninvasive ventilation with vs without early surfactant to prevent chronic lung disease in preterm infants: A systematic review and meta-analysis. JAMA Pediatr 2015;169(8):731-9.
  26. Brix N, Sellmer A, Jensen MS, Pedersen LV, Henriksen TB. Predictors for an unsuccessful INtubation-SURfactant-Extubation procedure: A cohort study. BMC Pediatr 2014;14:155.
  27. Kribs A, Hummler H. Ancillary therapies to enhance success of non-invasive modes of respiratory support – Approaches to delivery room use of surfactant and caffeine? Semin Fetal Neonatal Med 2016;21(3):212-8.
  28. Early or selective surfactant (colfosceril palmitate, Exosurf) for intubated babies at 26 to 29 weeks gestation. A European double-blind trial with sequential analysis. European Exosurf Study Group. Online J Curr Clin Trials 1992;Doc No 28.
  29. Plavka R, Kopecký P, Sebron V, et al. Early versus delayed surfactant administration in extremely premature neonates with respiratory distress syndrome ventilated by high-frequency oscillatory ventilation. Intensive Care Med 2002;28(10):1483-90.
  30. Dargaville PA, Aiyappan A, De Paoli AG, et al. Continuous positive airway pressure failure in preterm infants: Incidence, predictors and consequences. Neonatology 2013;104(1):8-14.
  31. Fuchs H, Lindner W, Leiprecht A, Mendler MR, Hummler HD. Predictors of early nasal CPAP failure and effects of various intubation criteria on the rate of mechanical ventilation in preterm infants of 29 weeks gestational age. Arch Dis Child Fetal Neonatal Ed 2011;96(5):F343-7.
  32. Rojas MA, Lozano JM, Rojas MX, et al. Very early surfactant without mandatory ventilation in premature infants treated with early continuous positive airway pressure: A randomized, controlled trial. Pediatrics 2009;123(1):137-42.
  33. Mildenhall LF, Pavuluri NN, Bowman ED. Safety of synthetic surfactant use before preterm newborn transport. J Paediatr Child Health 1999;35(6):530-5.
  34. Sardesai S, Biniwale M, Wertheimer F, Garingo A, Ramanathan R. Evolution of surfactant therapy for respiratory distress syndrome: Past, present, and future. Pediatr Res 2017;81(1-2):240-8.
  35. Lemyre B, Fusch C, Schmolzer GM, Schmölzer GM, et al. Poractant alfa versus bovine lipid extract surfactant for infants 24+0 to 31+6 weeks gestational age: A randomized controlled trial. PLoS One 2017;12(5):e0175922.
  36. Kattwinkel J, Bloom BT, Delmore P, et al. High-versus low-threshold surfactant retreatment for neonatal respiratory distress syndrome. Pediatrics 2000;106(2 Pt 1):282-8.
  37. Ramanathan R, Rasmussen MR, Gerstmann DR, Finer N, Sekar K; North American Study Group. A randomized, multicenter masked comparison trial of poractant alfa (Curosurf) versus beractant (Survanta) in the treatment of respiratory distress syndrome in preterm infants. Am J Perinatol 2004;21(3):109-19.
  38. Niemarkt HJ, Hütten MC, Kramer BW. Surfactant for respiratory distress syndrome: new ideas on a familiar drug with innovative applications. Neonatology 2017;111(4):408-14.
  39. More K, Sakhuja P, Shah PS. Minimally invasive surfactant administration in preterm infants: A meta-narrative review. JAMA Pediatr 2014;168(10):901-8.
  40. Kribs A, Pillekamp F, Hünseler C, Vierzig A, Roth B. Early administration of surfactant in spontaneous breathing with nCPAP: Feasibility and outcome in extremely premature infants (postmenstrual age /=27 weeks). Paediatr Anaesth 2007;17(4):364-9.
  41. Verder H, Agertoft L, Albertsen P, et al. [Surfactant treatment of newborn infants with respiratory distress syndrome primarily treated with nasal continuous positive air pressure. A pilot study.] Ugeskr Laeger 1992;154(31):2136-9.
  42. Aldana-Aguirre JC, Pinto M, Featherstone RM, Kumar M. Less invasive surfactant administration versus intubation for surfactant delivery in preterm infants with respiratory distress syndrome: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Arch Dis Child Fetal Neonatal Ed 2017;102(1):F17-F23.
  43. Isayama T, Iwami H, McDonald S, Beyene J. Association of noninvasive ventilation strategies with mortality and bronchopulmonary dysplasia among preterm infants: A systematic review and meta-analysis. JAMA 2016;316(6):611-24.
  44. Dargaville PA, Aiyappan A, Cornelius A, Williams C, De Paoli AG. Preliminary evaluation of a new technique of minimally invasive surfactant therapy. Arch Dis Child Fetal Neonatal Ed 2011;96(4):F243-8.
  45. Dargaville PA, Aiyappan A, De Paoli AG, et al. Minimally-invasive surfactant therapy in preterm infants on continuous positive airway pressure. Arch Dis Child Fetal Neonatal Ed 2013;98(2):F122-6.
  46. Dargaville PA, Kamlin CO, De Paoli AG, et al. The OPTIMIST-A trial: Evaluation of minimally-invasive surfactant therapy in preterm infants 25-28 weeks gestation. BMC Pediatr 2014;14:213.
  47. Kribs A. Minimally Invasive Surfactant Therapy and Noninvasive Respiratory Support. Clin Perinatol. 2016;43(4):755-71.
  48. Olivier F, Nadeau S, Bélanger S, et al. Efficacy of minimally invasive surfactant therapy in moderate and late preterm infants: A multicentre randomized control trial. Paediatr Child Health 2017;22(3):120-4.
  49. Bhattacharya S, Read B, McGovern E, da Silva O. High-volume surfactant administration using a minimally invasive technique: Experience from a Canadian Neonatal Intensive Care Unit. Paediatr Child Health 2019;24(5):313-17.
  50. De Luca D, Minucci A, Gentile L, Capoluongo ED. Surfactant inadvertent loss using feeding catheters or endotracheal tubes. Am J Perinatol 2014;31(3):209-12.
  51. Fujioka K, Kuroda J, Yamana K, Iijima K, Morioka I. Loss of Surfacten® during bolus administration with a feeding catheter. Pediatr Int 2017;59(11):1174-7.
  52. Márquez Isidro E, Sánchez Luna M, Ramos-Navarro C. Long-term outcomes of preterm infants treated with less invasive surfactant technique (LISA). J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2019 Aug 12:1-6. doi: 10.1080/14767058.2019.1651276. [Epub ahead of print]
  53. Abdel-Latif ME, Osborn DA. Laryngeal mask airway surfactant administration for prevention of morbidity and mortality in preterm infants with or at risk of respiratory distress syndrome. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2011(7):CD008309.
  54. Attridge JT, Stewart C, Stukenborg GJ, Kattwinkel J. Administration of rescue surfactant by laryngeal mask airway: Lessons from a pilot trial. Am J Perinatol 2013;30(3):201-6.
  55. Brimacombe J, Gandini D, Keller C. The laryngeal mask airway for administration of surfactant in two neonates with respiratory distress syndrome. Paediatr Anaesth 2004;14(2):188-90.
  56. Pinheiro JM, Santana-Rivas Q, Pezzano C. Randomized trial of laryngeal mask airway versus endotracheal intubation for surfactant delivery. J Perinatol 2016;36(3):196-201.
  57. Sadeghnia A, Tanhaei M, Mohammadizadeh M, Nemati M. 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. Adv Biomed Res 2014;3:e160.
  58. Vannozzi I, Ciantelli M, Moscuzza F, et al. Catheter and laryngeal mask endotracheal surfactant therapy: The CALMEST approach as a novel MIST technique. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med 2017;30(19):2375-7.
  59. Ten Centre Study Group. Ten Centre trial of artificial surfactant (artificial lung expanding compound) in very premature babies. Br Med J (Clin Res Ed) 1987;294(6578):991-6.
  60. Berggren E, Liljedahl M, Winbladh B, et al. Pilot study of nebulized surfactant therapy for neonatal respiratory distress syndrome. Acta Paediatr 2000;89(4):460-4.
  61. Jorch G, Hartl H, Roth B, et al. Surfactant aerosol treatment of respiratory distress syndrome in spontaneously breathing premature infants. Pediatr Pulmonol 1997;24(3):222-4.
  62. Finer NN, Merritt TA, Bernstein G, Job L, Mazela J, Segal R. An open label, pilot study of Aerosurf® combined with nCPAP to prevent RDS in preterm neonates. J Aerosol Med Pulm Drug Delivery 2010;23(5):303-9.
  63. Minocchieri S, Burren JM, Bachmann MA, et al. Development of the premature infant nose throat-model (PrINT-Model): An upper airway replica of a premature neonate for the study of aerosol delivery. Pediatr Res 2008;64(2):141-6.
  64. Minocchieri S, Berry CA, Pillow JJ; CureNeb Study Team. Nebulised surfactant to reduce severity of respiratory distress: A blinded, parallel, randomised controlled trial. Arch Dis Child Fetal Neonatal Ed 2018;104(3):F313-19.
  65. Hahn S, Choi HJ, Soll R, Dargaville PA. Lung lavage for meconium aspiration syndrome in newborn infants. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2013(4):CD003486.
  66. El Shahed AI, Dargaville PA, Ohlsson A, Soll R. Surfactant for meconium aspiration syndrome in term and late preterm infants. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2014(12):CD002054.
  67. Tan K, Lai NM, Sharma A. Surfactant for bacterial pneumonia in late preterm and term infants. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2012(2):CD008155.
  68. Aziz A, Ohlsson A. Surfactant for pulmonary haemorrhage in neonates. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2012(7):CD005254.
  69. Amizuka T, Shimizu H, Niida Y, Ogawa Y. Surfactant therapy in neonates with respiratory failure due to haemorrhagic pulmonary oedema. Eur J Pediatr 2003;162(10):697-702.
  70. Pandit PB, Dunn MS, Colucci EA. Surfactant therapy in neonates with respiratory deterioration due to pulmonary hemorrhage. Pediatrics 1995;95(1):32-6.
  71. Raju TN, Langenberg P. Pulmonary hemorrhage and exogenous surfactant therapy: A meta-analysis. J Pediatr 1993;123(4):603-10.
  72. Sweet DG, Carnielli V, Greisen G, et al. European consensus guidelines on the management of respiratory distress syndrome – 2019 Update. Neonatology 2019;115(4):432-50.

Disclaimer: The recommendations in this position statement do not indicate an exclusive course of treatment or procedure to be followed. Variations, taking into account individual circumstances, may be appropriate. Internet addresses are current at time of publication.

Last updated: Feb 8, 2024

In this section

Related information

statements and practice points

Paediatrics & Child Health