Observational studyBMC pediatrics2025
Neonatal respiratory care in Vietnam: surfactant use and clinical practices in a large neonatal intensive care unit.
Observational study in BMC pediatrics, 2025. 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.
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
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundNeonatal mortality remains a significant health challenge, particularly in low- and middle-income settings, where respiratory distress is a major contributor to mortality. Characterizations of respiratory care practices in the neonatal intensive care unit (NICU), in lower-middle-income contexts in south-east Asia, are notably sparse in the literature. This study aimed to describe the management practices, morbidity, and mortality of newborns requiring respiratory support at a large level III NICU in Hanoi, Vietnam.
methodsThis prospective, descriptive observational study was conducted at Phu San Hanoi Hospital with about 35 000 births in 2023. Infants born alive, requiring respiratory support, and with a birth weight ≥ 700 g were included. Data were collected from September 1 to November 30, 2023, and analysed using descriptive statistics.
resultsDuring the study period 17% of infants born at the hospital were admitted to the NICU of which n=874, 52% were included in the analysis. The median gestational age was 34.6 weeks, and the median birth weight was 2,150 g. Respiratory distress syndrome (RDS) was the leading cause of respiratory support (41%), followed by transient tachypnoea of the newborn (24%) and early-onset sepsis (13%). Non-invasive respiratory support, especially nasal continuous positive airway pressure (nCPAP) (45%) and nasal intermittent positive airway pressure (NIPPV) (21%), was widely utilized, with NIPPV being more common among larger infants. Invasive mechanical ventilation was required in 23% of infants, with higher rates in lower birth weight groups. The overall mortality rate was 3%, with the highest mortality among extremely low birth weight infants (36%). Surfactant therapy was administered to 37% of infants with RDS which was also the primary indication for surfactant treatment (98%). Of all first-dose surfactant therapies, 92% were given within the first six hours after birth and 49% were administered by the INSURE (intubation-surfactant-extubation) method.
conclusionsThis study provides valuable insights into respiratory care practices and outcomes for infants requiring respiratory support at northern Vietnam’s largest obstetrical hospital. It highlights RDS as a significant contributor to neonatal morbidity and identifies opportunities to enhance non-invasive support and surfactant administration techniques, potentially reducing invasive mechanical ventilation and improving neonatal outcomes.
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.