To systematically review the clinical outcomes of surfactant administration via a thin endotracheal catheter during spontaneous breathing compared with conventional administration involving tracheal intubation, mechanical ventilation (MV), and tracheal extubation, in preterm infants. PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library were searched to identify relevant clinical trials. Data were analyzed using the Cochrane Collaboration methods. Primary outcome measures included the incidence of MV and bronchopulmonary dysplasia (BPD). Finally, four RCTs, two prospective cohort trials, and six historical controlled trials involving 5,261 preterm infants were analyzed. In RCTs, surfactant administration though a thin catheter reduced the incidence of MV (risk ratio [RR]: 0.74; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.66, 0.81) in 72 hr and BPD (RR: 0.69, 95%CI: 0.50, 0.97) compared with conventional administration and in non-RCTs, there was also significant reduction in the incidence of MV (RR: 0.55, 95%CI: 0.45, 0.68) and BPD (RR: 0.70, 95%CI: 0.60, 0.82) in favor of the thin catheter group. There were no significant differences between the two procedures in terms of short-term pulmonary complications, intracranial pathology, necrotizing enterocolitis, retinopathy of prematurity, and mortality. Thus, surfactant administration via a thin endotracheal catheter to preterm infants has promising benefits, including reducing the incidences of MV and BPD, while providing comparable breathing support to conventional administration in MV. Pediatr Pulmonol. 2017; 52:844-854. © 2017 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

It is unclear whether there is a difference in outcomes with treosulfan or busulfan-based conditioning in pediatric patients undergoing hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT). We reviewed the evidence on this topic through a systematic review and meta-analysis, the comparison between treosulfan and busulfan-based conditioning in pediatric patients undergoing HSCT for instance. Six studies were included. Meta-analysis showed that there was no difference in the incidence of acute graft versus host disease (odds ratio [OR]: 0.96; 95% CI: 0.57, 1.61), grade II to IV acute graft versus host disease (OR: 1.19; 95% CI: 0.83, 1.72), chronic GVHD (OR: 1.18; 95% CI: 0.70, 2.00), and veno-occlusive disease (OR: 0.92; 95% CI: 0.22, 3.85) between treosulfan and busulfan groups. Pooled analysis indicated marginally better survival with treosulfan-based conditioning (OR: 1.57; 95% CI: 1.00, 2.44), however, these results were unstable on sensitivity analysis. A meta-analysis found no difference in transplant-related mortality (OR: 0.70; 95% CI: 0.34, 1.42) between the two groups. Retrospective data from a heterogenous population indicates that there is no difference in the rate of GVHD after treosulfan versus busulfan-based conditioning for pediatric HSCT. A marginal improvement in survival was noted with treosulfan but the results remained unstable. Future randomized controlled trials are needed to provide better evidence.