ArticleEuropean journal of pediatrics2026
Comparison of LISA and INSURE techniques for surfactant administration: a multicentre retrospective study.
Article in European journal of pediatrics, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
NIV and early targeted endotracheal surfactant administration play a pivotal role in the treatment of RDS and other respiratory conditions in neonates. LISA and INSURE are the most widely used techniques for surfactant delivery. This multicentre retrospective registry-based cohort study, conducted in three Southern Italy Neonatal Intensive Care Units between January 2024 and March 2025, aimed to compare their effectiveness. Neonates who received NIV soon after birth and rescue surfactant via either INSURE or LISA were included. Treatment failure was defined as the need for a second dose of surfactant or the need for intubation and mechanical ventilation within 72 h of life. The secondary outcomes were the incidence of BPD at 36 weeks post-menstrual age or at discharge and impact of the applied NIV mode on outcomes within the LISA subgroup. Sixty-one neonates were enrolled: 29 LISA group (48%) and 32 INSURE group (52%). No significant differences were observed in the need for a second surfactant dose (LISA 38% vs INSURE 19%, p = 0.095) or mechanical ventilation within the first 72 h of life (LISA 17% vs INSURE 9%, p = 0.460). BPD incidence was low and comparable between groups (LISA 7% vs INSURE 3%, p = 0.600). In LISA-treated neonates, HFNC, nCPAP, and NIPPV showed comparable effects on primary and secondary outcomes, while oxygen supplementation duration was significantly shorter with NIPPV (p = 0.014).
conclusionLISA and INSURE are equally effective modalities for surfactant administration in neonates with no significant differences. WHAT IS KNOWN: • Less invasive surfactant administration (LISA) is currently recommended by the latest European guidelines as the preferred method for surfactant delivery in spontaneously breathing infants on non-invasive ventilation (NIV). • Previous studies suggested that LISA and INSURE have similar safety and effectiveness, with comparable short- and long-term outcomes. WHAT IS NEW: • In this study, the need for a second dose of surfactant was explicitly considered as a marker of LISA failure. • LISA and INSURE techniques are comparable in reducing the need for mechanical ventilation and have similar major clinical outcomes, including BPD. There was a trend toward a higher rate of surfactant retreatment in the LISA group, without reaching statistical significance (p = 0.095). This was not associated with increased intubation or adverse outcomes, suggesting a potential stepwise non-invasive management strategy rather than true therapeutic failure.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.