Evidence on the clinical effectiveness of probiotics in the prevention of necrotising enterocolitis (NEC) in preterm infants is conflicting and cohort studies lacked adjustment for time trend and feeding type. This study investigated the association between the introduction of routine probiotics (Lactobacillus acidophilus and Bifidobacterium bifidum; Infloran®) on the primary outcome ‘NEC or death’. Preterm infants (gestational age <32 weeks or birth weight <1500 gram) admitted before (Jan 2008–Sep 2012; n = 1288) and after (Oct 2012–Dec 2014; n = 673) introduction of probiotics were compared. Interrupted time series logistic regression models were adjusted for confounders, effect modification by feeding type, seasonality and underlying temporal trends. Unadjusted and adjusted analyses showed no difference in ‘NEC or death’ between the two periods. The overall incidence of NEC declined from 7.8% to 5.1% (OR 0.63, 95% CI 0.42–0.93, p = 0.02), which was not statistically significant in the adjusted models. Introduction of probiotics was associated with a reduced adjusted odds for ‘NEC or sepsis or death’ in exclusively breastmilk-fed infants (OR 0.43, 95% CI 0.21–0.93, p = 0.03) only. We conclude that introduction of probiotics was not associated with a reduction in ‘NEC or death’ and that type of feeding seems to modify the effects of probiotics.
Background:
We aimed to assess whether the effect of intravenous alteplase treatment (IVT) before endovascular treatment (EVT) on outcome is modified by first-line technique during EVT in IVT eligible patients.
Methods:
This was a post hoc analysis from MR CLEAN-NO IV (Multicenter Randomized Clinical Trial of Endovascular Treatment for Acute Ischemic Stroke in the Netherlands - Intravenous Treatment Followed by Intra-Arterial Treatment Versus Direct Intra-Arterial Treatment for Acute Ischemic Stroke Caused by a Proximal Intracranial Occlusion), a randomized trial of IVT followed by EVT versus EVT alone in patients presenting directly to EVT-capable centers. We included data from all patients who underwent EVT with a thrombectomy attempt. We compared patients treated with stent retriever (with or without aspiration) to aspiration alone as first-line EVT technique and assessed the interaction of first-line EVT technique with IVT treatment. Primary outcome was the 90-day modified Rankin Scale score, analyzed with mixed model ordinal regression for a shift towards better outcome. Secondary outcomes included successful reperfusion (extended Thrombolysis in Cerebral Infarction score 2b–3).
Results:
Of 473 included patients, 102 (21.6%) were treated with aspiration alone as first-line technique. In the full population, functional outcome was similar for patients treated with stent retriever versus aspiration only (adjusted common odds ratio [acOR]‚ 1.07 [95% CI, 0.69–1.66]). We observed a significant interaction between IVT and first-line EVT technique (
P
=0.03). In the aspiration-only group, patients treated with EVT alone had worse functional outcome compared to those treated with IVT and EVT (acOR, 0.44 [95% CI, 0.21–0.90]). In the stent retriever group, functional outcome did not differ between patients treated with or without IVT (acOR, 1.08 [95% CI, 0.74–1.57]). There was no statistically significant interaction for successful reperfusion.
Conclusions:
In MR CLEAN-NO IV, the treatment effect of IVT was modified by first-line EVT technique. Patients treated with aspiration only as first-line technique had worse clinical outcomes if they did not receive IVT. No such difference was observed in patients treated with stent retrievers. Confirmation by pooling with results from other trials is needed to confirm these findings.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.