Biomedical Optics Research Laboratory, Department of Neonatology, University Hospital Zurich, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.
Department of Life, Health and Environmental Science, University of L'Aquila, L'Aquila, Italy.
Adv Exp Med Biol. 2024;1463:41-44. doi: 10.1007/978-3-031-67458-7_7.
Recently, the usefulness of near-infrared spectroscopy-based cerebral oximetry in extremely preterm infants to prevent death or severe brain injury was evaluated in a study called SafeBoosC-III (N = 1601). In this study, the incidence of both outcomes was similar between the cerebral oximetry and the control group. In a previous smaller study called SafeBoosC-II (N = 166), there was a borderline significant advantage for cerebral oximetry. There is therefore a highly significant (p = 0.010) difference between the two outcomes. What could be the reason for the difference? One major difference was that many centres were not familiar with cerebral oximeters in the new study compared with the old study. This could be a reason for the discrepancy. We conclude that cerebral oximetry should not be disregarded as a method of neuromonitoring in neonatology.
最近，一项名为 SafeBoosC-III 的研究评估了近红外光谱脑氧饱和度监测在极早产儿中预防死亡或严重脑损伤的作用（N=1601）。在这项研究中，脑氧饱和度监测组和对照组的两种结局发生率相似。在之前一项名为 SafeBoosC-II 的较小研究中（N=166），脑氧饱和度监测组有一个边缘显著的优势。因此，两种结局之间存在非常显著的差异（p=0.010）。造成差异的原因可能是什么？一个主要的区别是，与旧研究相比，新研究中许多中心对脑氧饱和度计不熟悉。这可能是差异的原因之一。我们的结论是，脑氧饱和度监测不应被忽视作为新生儿学中神经监测的一种方法。
