We have located links that may give you full text access.
COMPARATIVE STUDY
JOURNAL ARTICLE
RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL
Oral indomethacin versus oral ibuprofen for treatment of patent ductus arteriosus: a randomised controlled study in very low-birthweight infants.
Paediatrics and International Child Health 2018 August
BACKGROUND: In low- and middle-income countries (LMIC), haemodynamically significant patent ductus arteriosus (hsPDA) is treated with oral indomethacin (IDC) and ibuprofen (IB) instead of intravenous formulations. No significant differences in efficacy have been reported. However, previous studies had small numbers of VLBW infants (<1500 g).
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy of oral IDC and IB for closing PDA in VLBW infants with a gestational age of 24-32 weeks.
METHODS: This randomised controlled study enrolled 32 infants with hsPDA for treatment with either three doses of oral IDC or oral IB. Echocardiography was performed before and after treatment.
RESULTS: Oral IDC was more effective than oral IB (65% vs. 27%, p = 0.03). This difference was attributable to the subset of extremely low-birthweight infants (<1000 g) in whom an hsPDA closed 78% of the time after oral IDC compared with 13% of those treated with oral IB (p = 0.01). In contrast, there was no difference in hsPDA closure rates between the study groups of infants with birthweights of 1000-1499 g. There was no significant difference between the drugs in clinical and laboratory measures of adverse effects, nor of other clinical outcomes Conclusion: Oral IDC was more effective than oral IB for closing PDA in VLBW infants, without significant differences in side-effects or short-term outcomes.
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy of oral IDC and IB for closing PDA in VLBW infants with a gestational age of 24-32 weeks.
METHODS: This randomised controlled study enrolled 32 infants with hsPDA for treatment with either three doses of oral IDC or oral IB. Echocardiography was performed before and after treatment.
RESULTS: Oral IDC was more effective than oral IB (65% vs. 27%, p = 0.03). This difference was attributable to the subset of extremely low-birthweight infants (<1000 g) in whom an hsPDA closed 78% of the time after oral IDC compared with 13% of those treated with oral IB (p = 0.01). In contrast, there was no difference in hsPDA closure rates between the study groups of infants with birthweights of 1000-1499 g. There was no significant difference between the drugs in clinical and laboratory measures of adverse effects, nor of other clinical outcomes Conclusion: Oral IDC was more effective than oral IB for closing PDA in VLBW infants, without significant differences in side-effects or short-term outcomes.
Full text links
Related Resources
Trending Papers
Heart failure with preserved ejection fraction: diagnosis, risk assessment, and treatment.Clinical Research in Cardiology : Official Journal of the German Cardiac Society 2024 April 12
Proximal versus distal diuretics in congestive heart failure.Nephrology, Dialysis, Transplantation 2024 Februrary 30
Efficacy and safety of pharmacotherapy in chronic insomnia: A review of clinical guidelines and case reports.Mental Health Clinician 2023 October
World Health Organization and International Consensus Classification of eosinophilic disorders: 2024 update on diagnosis, risk stratification, and management.American Journal of Hematology 2024 March 30
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app