Supplementary Material for: Sedation during Minimal Invasive Surfactant Therapy in Preterm Infants

<p><b><i>Background:</i></b> There is no data available whether sedation should be given during minimally invasive surfactant therapy (MIST). <b><i>Objective:</i></b> To compare the level of comfort of preterm infants receiving sedation versus no sedation for MIST. <b><i>Methods:</i></b> A retrospective study of preterm infants receiving MIST was performed in Leiden University Medical Center in 2014. Sedation (propofol 1 mg/kg) was optional and left to the discretion of the caregiver. Standardized COMFORTneo scores were compared, and COMFORTneo <14 was considered comfortable. Basic characteristics and complications were noted. <b><i>Results:</i></b> In 38 infants receiving MIST, 23 received propofol and 15 were not sedated. Mean (SD) gestational age [29 (2) vs. 29 (3) weeks] and birth weight [1,312 (483) vs. 1,469 (588) g] were not different. Median (IQR) COMFORTneo was not different between the groups before [11 (9-15) vs. 10 (8-12)] and after MIST [10 (8-12) vs. 9 (8-10)], but lower in the sedated group during MIST [12 (9-17) vs. 20 (15-23)] with more often COMFORTneo <14 (56 vs. 11%). Duration of MIST [2 (2-4) vs. 3 (2-7) min] and occurrence of bradycardia (13 vs. 33%) and hypotension (21 vs. 18%) were not different. Although not significant, intubation occurred more often in the sedated group (during MIST: 9 vs. 0%, <24 h after MIST: 26 vs. 13%). During MIST, oxygen saturation <80% lasted longer in the sedated group [3 (2-4) vs. 1 (0-2) min], and nasal intermittent positive pressure ventilation was applied more (100 vs. 33%). <b><i>Conclusions:</i></b> Preterm infants receiving MIST were more comfortable when sedation was given, but needed ventilation more often. A randomized controlled trial is warranted to test whether the benefit of sedation outweighs the risks of complications.</p>