Postnatal phenobarbital for the prevention of intraventricular haemorrhage in preterm infants.

BACKGROUND

Intraventricular haemorrhage (IVH) is a major complication of preterm birth. Large haemorrhages are associated with a high risk of disability and hydrocephalus. Instability of blood pressure and cerebral blood in the newborn flow are postulated as causative factors. Another mechanism may involve reperfusion damage from oxygen free radicals. It has been suggested that phenobarbital stabilises blood pressure and may protect against free radicals. This is an update of a review first published in 2001 and updated in 2007 and 2013.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the benefits and harms of the postnatal administration of phenobarbital in preterm infants at risk of developing IVH compared to control (i.e. no intervention or placebo).

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Medline, Embase, CINAHL and clinical trial registries in January 2022. A new, more sensitive search strategy was developed, and searches were conducted without date limits.  SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) or quasi-RCTs in which phenobarbital was given within the first 24 hours of life to preterm infants identified as being at risk of IVH because of gestational age below 34 weeks, birth weight below 1500 g or respiratory failure. Phenobarbital was compared to no intervention or placebo. We excluded infants with serious congenital malformations.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard Cochrane methods. Our primary outcomes were all grades of IVH and severe IVH (i.e. grade III and IV); secondary outcomes were ventricular dilation or hydrocephalus, hypotension, pneumothorax, hypercapnia, acidosis, mechanical ventilation, neurodevelopmental impairment and death. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence for each outcome.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 10 RCTs (792 infants). The evidence suggests that phenobarbital results in little to no difference in the incidence of IVH of any grade compared with control (risk ratio (RR) 1.00, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.84 to 1.19; risk difference (RD) 0.00, 95% CI -0.06 to 0.07; I² for RD = 65%; 10 RCTs, 792 participants; low certainty evidence) and in severe IVH (RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.64 to 1.21; 10 RCTs, 792 participants; low certainty evidence). The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of phenobarbital on posthaemorrhagic ventricular dilation or hydrocephalus (RR 0.62, 95% CI 0.31 to 1.26; 4 RCTs, 271 participants; very low certainty evidence), mild neurodevelopmental impairment (RR 0.57, 95% CI 0.15 to 2.17; 1RCT, 101 participants; very low certainty evidence), and severe neurodevelopmental impairment (RR 1.12, 95% CI 0.44 to 2.82; 2 RCTs, 153 participants; very low certainty evidence). Phenobarbital may result in little to no difference in death before discharge (RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.64 to 1.21; 9 RCTs, 740 participants; low certainty evidence) and mortality during study period (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.72 to 1.33; 10 RCTs, 792 participants; low certainty evidence) compared with control. We identified no ongoing trials.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The evidence suggests that phenobarbital results in little to no difference in the incidence of IVH (any grade or severe) compared with control (i.e. no intervention or placebo). The evidence is very uncertain about the effects of phenobarbital on ventricular dilation or hydrocephalus and on neurodevelopmental impairment. The evidence suggests that phenobarbital results in little to no difference in death before discharge and all deaths during the study period compared with control. Since 1993, no randomised studies have been published on phenobarbital for the prevention of IVH in preterm infants, and no trials are ongoing. The effects of postnatal phenobarbital might be assessed in infants with both neonatal seizures and IVH, in both randomised and observational studies. The assessment of benefits and harms should include long-term outcomes.