Am J Perinatol 2024; 41(S 01): e680-e688
DOI: 10.1055/a-1925-5173
Original Article

Indomethacin Prophylaxis in Preterm Infants: Changes over Time

Authors

  • Samantha F. Curtis

    1   Department of Pediatrics, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, North Carolina
  • C. Michael Cotten

    1   Department of Pediatrics, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, North Carolina
  • Matthew Laughon

    2   Department of Pediatrics, The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill School of Medicine, Chapel Hill, North Carolina
  • Noelle Younge

    1   Department of Pediatrics, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, North Carolina
  • Jennifer Peterson

    1   Department of Pediatrics, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, North Carolina
  • Reese H. Clark

    3   MEDNAX, Inc., Sunrise, Florida
  • Rachel G. Greenberg

    1   Department of Pediatrics, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, North Carolina
    4   Duke Clinical Research Institute, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, North Carolina

Funding None.
Preview

Abstract

Objective Our objective was to examine changes in the use of indomethacin prophylaxis in the neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) between 2008 and 2018.

Study Design The design of the study included cohort of 19,715 infants born between 220/7 and 266/7 weeks' gestation from 213 NICUs. A nonparametric trend test evaluated indomethacin prophylaxis and the percentage of sites using any prophylaxis over time. We evaluated the prevalence of indomethacin prophylaxis by the center and the correlation between indomethacin prophylaxis and severe intraventricular hemorrhage prevalence among 12 centers with the largest relative change in indomethacin prophylaxis prevalence.

Results In total, 16% of infants received indomethacin prophylaxis. The use of indomethacin prophylaxis did not significantly decrease between 2008 and 2018 but it significantly decreased between 2014 and 2018 (p = 0.046). Among 74 centers with ≥10 infants included, 20% increased the use of indomethacin prophylaxis, while 57% decreased the use over the study period. Of the 12 centers with the largest relative change in indomethacin prophylaxis prevalence, 50% showed an inverse correlation between indomethacin prophylaxis prevalence and severe intraventricular hemorrhage, while 50% showed a positive correlation.

Conclusion Receipt of indomethacin prophylaxis remained similar until 2014, decreased from 2014 to 2018, and varied by the center.

Key Points

  • The receipt of indomethacin prophylaxis decreased over time.

  • Center change in the use of indomethacin prophylaxis does not correlate with the center prevalence of IVH.

  • Variability in the use of indomethacin prophylaxis across centers persists.

Authors' Contributions

S.F.C. had full access to all of the data in the study and takes responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis. S.F.C. contributed to the conception and design of the study, the data interpretation, the manuscript drafting, and the critical revision of the manuscript.


C.M.C. contributed to the data interpretation, the manuscript drafting, and the critical revision of the manuscript.


M.L. contributed to the data interpretation, the manuscript drafting, and the critical revision of the manuscript.


N.Y. contributed to the data interpretation, the manuscript drafting, and the critical revision of the manuscript.


J.P. contributed to the data interpretation, the manuscript drafting, and the critical revision of the manuscript.


R.H.C. contributed to the data interpretation, the manuscript drafting, and the critical revision of the manuscript.


R.G.G. had full access to all of the data in the study and takes responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis. R.G.G. contributed to the conception and design of the study, the data interpretation, the manuscript drafting, and the critical revision of the manuscript.


Supplementary Material



Publication History

Received: 18 February 2022

Accepted: 09 August 2022

Accepted Manuscript online:
16 August 2022

Article published online:
19 October 2022

© 2022. Thieme. All rights reserved.

Thieme Medical Publishers, Inc.
333 Seventh Avenue, 18th Floor, New York, NY 10001, USA