|
Indian Pediatr 2017;54: 1057 |
|
Comparative Efficacy and Safety of Caffeine and Aminophylline
for Apnea of Prematurity: Few Concerns: Author's Reply
|
M Shivakumar and *Leslie
Edward Simon Lewis
Department of Pediatrics, Women and Child block,
Kasturba Medical College, Manipal, India.
Email:
[email protected]
|
We are thankful to readers for keen interest in our
study [1].
There were a couple of typographical errors in the
published paper. We regret these typographical errors and thank the
readers for pointing them out. We have already submitted an erratum that
has been published in the October 2017 issue of the journal on page 870.
Apnea is categorized based on presence or absence of
upper airway obstruction; 40% of the episodes are central or
diaphragmatic with no evidence of obstruction, 10% are obstructive, and
50% are mixed [2]. Majority of participants in our study experienced
mixed type of apnea with both central and obstructive elements. Our
study did not predispose the participants to hypoxia. Firstly, it was
not 20 apnea episodes per day. Apneas were recorded per 24 hours and sum
of apneic spells during 4th to 7th day of therapy was depicted in the
Table II (20 is total episodes). Any neonate with recurrent apneas, or
apnea requiring bag and mask ventilation was considered for CPAP.
Conventional mechanical ventilation was the backup option for infants
who had significant apnea and bradycardia on methylxanthines and CPAP.
References
1. Shivakumar M, Jayashree, P, Muhammad N, Leslie
ESL, Ramesh BY, Asha K, et al. Comparative efficacy and safety of
caffeine and aminophylline for apnea of prematurity in preterm ( £34
weeks) neonates: A randomized controlled trial. Indian Pediatr.
2017;54:279-83.
2. Martin RJ, Abu-Shaweesh JM. Control of breathing and neonatal
apnea. Biol Neonate. 2005;87:288-95.
|
|
|
|