To compare LISA with INSURE technique for surfactant administration in preterm with gestational age (GA) < 36 weeks with RDS in respect to the incidence of pneumothorax, bronchopulmonary dysplasia (BPD), need for mechanical ventilation (MV), regional cerebral oxygen saturation (rSO2), peri‑intraventricular hemorrhage (PIVH) and mortality. A systematic search in PubMed, Embase, Lilacs, CINAHL, SciELO databases, Brazilian Registry of Randomized Clinical Trials (ReBEC), Clinicaltrials.gov, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) was performed. RCTs evaluating the effects of the LISA technique versus INSURE in preterm infants with gestational age < 36 weeks and that had as outcomes evaluation of the rates of pneumothorax, BPD, need for MV, rSO2, PIVH, and mortality were included in the meta-analysis. Random effects and hazard ratio models were used to combine all study results. Inter-study heterogeneity was assessed using Cochrane Q statistics and Higgin's I2 statistics. Sixteen RCTs published between 2012 and 2020 met the inclusion criteria, a total of 1,944 preterms. Eleven studies showed a shorter duration of MV and CPAP in the LISA group than in INSURE group. Two studies evaluated rSO2 and suggested that LISA and INSURE transiently affect brain autoregulation during surfactant administration. INSURE group had a higher risk for MV in the first 72 h of life, pneumothorax, PIVH and mortality in comparison to the LISA group. This systematic review and meta-analyses provided evidence for the benefits of the LISA technique in the treatment of RDS, decreasing CPAP time, need for MV, BPD, pneumothorax, PIVH, and mortality when compared to INSURE.

This study extended previous research by investigating the combined effects of neonatal birth risks, neonatal adverse outcomes, and socioeconomic status on preterm neurodevelopment. A total of 184 preterm infants were assessed using the Bayley Scales of Infant Development III in a follow-up clinic in southern Brazil. Structural equation modeling was conducted with 3 latent variables (neonatal birth risks, neonatal adverse outcomes, and socioeconomic status) and 3 outcomes (cognitive, language, and motor development). The analyses showed that neonatal adverse outcomes were associated with infants’ cognitive (b = –0.45, P < .001), language (b = –0.23, P = .001), and motor (b = –0.51, P < .001) development. Socioeconomic status also explained the variances (cognitive: b = 0.20, P = .006; language: b = 0.28, P = .001; and motor: b = 0.21, P = .004), whereas neonatal birth risks remained significant only in the motor development (b = 0.15, P = .040). This study suggests that the most evident contributors to poor neurodevelopment were adverse outcomes and socioeconomic risk factors.

Objective: To perform a longitudinal investigation of risk factors in premature infants’ cognitive, motor, and language development. Methods: Thirty-three preterm infants were assessed at 4, 8, and 12 months of corrected age, using the Bayley-III Scales. Parents completed questionnaires regarding development opportunities at home, parenting practices and knowledge. Results: Significant associations were found (1) at 4-months between cognitive scores and family income, variety of stimuli, availability of toys, parenting practices and knowledge; language and parenting practices; and motor skills and parenting practices; (2) at 8-months between cognitive score and length of stay in the Neonatal Intensive Care Unit (NICU), gestational age, birth weight, toys, and parenting knowledge; language and toys; and motor skills and toys and parenting knowledge; (3) at 12-months between cognitive scores and length of stay in the NICU, family income, breastfeeding, toys, and parenting knowledge; language and income and toys; and motor scores and length of stay in the NICU, gestational age, income, stimuli, toys, and parenting knowledge. Regression analyses indicated that: for (1) cognitive development, stimulus variety explained 72% of the model variance at 4 months of age; time at the NICU explained 67 and 43% at 8 and 12 months of age, respectively, and breastfeeding time explained 41% of the model variance at 12 months; (2) for language development, family income explained 42% of the model variance at 12 months; and for motor development (3), time at the NICU explained 80% of the model variance at 12 months. Conclusions: The development over the first year of life is not explained by the severity of birth conditions and associated morbidities only, but also by parenting practices.

Purpose: Early identification of impairments is crucial to providing better care for preterm children, especially those from low-income families. The early motor assessment is the first step in monitoring their neurodevelopment. This study investigates if motor development in the first year of life predicts impairments in cognition and language at 3-year-old in a Brazilian preterm cohort.Materials and methods: Data were collected in a follow-up clinic for high-risk infants. The Bayley Scales were used to assess children at 4, 8, 12, and 36 months of age, considering composite scores. Cognitive and language impairments were considered if scores were ≤85. Children (N = 70) were assessed at 4 and 36 months, 79 were assessed at 8 and 36 months, and 80 were assessed at 12 and 36 months. Logistic regressions were used to analyze the predictability of cognitive and language impairments, and receiver-operating characteristics (ROC) curves were used to analyze the sensibility and specificity of motor assessment and cognitive and language impairments.Results: Poor motor scores at 8 and 12 months increased the chances of cognitive and language impairment at 3-year-old. The chance of cognitive impairment at 3-year-old increases by 6–7% for each point that the motor composite score decreases, and the chance of language impairment at 3-year-old increases by 4–5% for each point that the motor composite score decreases. No-significant results were found at 4-months. Adequate sensibility and specificity were found for language impairments considering 12 months scores and for cognitive impairments as soon as 8 months scores.Conclusion: Monitoring preterm motor development in the first year of life helps to identify preterm children at risk for impairment in other developmental domains. Since preterm children from low-income families tend to demonstrate poorer neurodevelopment outcomes, these children need early assessment and referral to intervention to prevent school failures and support from public policies.