CONTEXT: The optimal oxygen saturation target for extremely preterm infants remains unclear.OBJECTIVE: To systematically review evidence evaluating the effect of lower (85%-89%) versus higher (91%-95%) pulse oxygen saturation (SpO 2 ) target on mortality and neurodevelopmental impairment (NDI) at 18 to 24 months.
DATA SOURCES:Electronic databases and all published randomized trials evaluating lower versus higher SpO 2 target in preterm infants.
STUDY SELECTION:A total of 2896 relevant citations were identified; 5 trials were included in the final analysis.DATA EXTRACTION: Data from 5 trials were analyzed for quality of evidence and risk of bias.
LIMITATIONS:Limitations include heterogeneity in age at enrollment and comorbidities between trials and change in oximeter algorithm midway through 3 trials.
RESULTS:There was no difference in the incidence of primary outcome (death/NDI at 18-24 months) in the 2 groups; risk ratio, 1.05, 95% confidence interval 0.98-1.12, P = .18. Mortality before 18 to 24 months was higher in the lower-target group (risk ratio, 1.16, 95% confidence interval 1.03-1.31, P = .02). Rates of NDI and severe visual loss did not differ between the 2 groups. Proportion of time infants spent outside the target range while on supplemental oxygen ranged from 8.2% to 27.4% <85% and 8.1% to 22.4% >95% with significant overlap between the 2 groups.CONCLUSIONS: There was no difference in primary outcome between the 2 SpO 2 target groups. The collective data suggest that risks associated with restricting the upper SpO 2 target limit to 89% outweigh the benefits. The quality of evidence was moderate. We speculate that a wider target range (lower alarm limit, 89% and upper, 96%) may increase time spent within range, but the safety profile of this approach remains to be determined. Dr Manja conceptualized and designed the study, reviewed the literature, carried out the initial analyses, and reviewed and revised the manuscript; Dr Saugstad critically reviewed and extensively revised the manuscript; Dr Lakshminrusimha was the second reviewer of the literature and drafted the initial manuscript; and all authors approved the fi nal manuscript as submitted and agree to be accountable for all aspects of work.