Trial reportJournal of perinatology : official journal of the California Perinatal Association2007
ETCare: a randomized, controlled, masked trial comparing two solutions for upper airway care in the NICU.
Trial report in Journal of perinatology : official journal of the California Perinatal Association, 2007. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundSmall quantities of normal saline are sometimes instilled into the endotracheal tube of intubated neonates, to assist with the removal of thick secretions and maintain patency of the endotracheal tube. However, saline is detrimental to the innate immune system of the upper airway mucosa, rapidly unfolding and inactivating antimicrobial peptides such as LL-37. We previously reported the preparation and feasibility testing of 'ETCare', a low-sodium, physiologically based solution for airway care, and we now report results of a randomized, masked, controlled, two-centered study testing ETCare vs sterile saline among 60 intubated NICU patients. STUDY
designSixty intubated NICU patients were randomized to having their airway care with ETCare vs saline. Three hypotheses were tested: (1) tolerance - patients will tolerate ETCare for airway care as well as they tolerate saline, (2) nosocomial infections - ETCare will result in fewer tracheal aspirates where organisms grow and fewer cases of nosocomial sepsis, and (3) chronic lung disuse - ETCare will result in fewer patients discharged home on supplemental O2.
resultsThirty NICU patients with an endotracheal tube in place were randomized to receive their airway care with ETCare, and 30 to receive their care with saline. Only the pharmacist was aware of the randomization; the two solutions were visually indistinguishable and were dispensed in identical syringes. Tolerance of the solutions was similar. The ETCare recipients had trends toward fewer positive blood cultures (odds ratios (OR), 0.48; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.13 to 1.68), and fewer discharges home on supplemental O2 (OR, 0.43; 95% CI, 0.14 to 1.32; P=0.075).
conclusionsOn the basis of this study and our previous 10-patient feasibility trial, we maintain that, for airway care, intubated NICU patients tolerate ETCare as well as saline. Data from this study can be used in estimating the sample sizes needed for a phase III trial. We speculate that such a trial will demonstrate that, compared with saline, ETCare will result in fewer nosocomial infections and less chronic lung disease.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.