Introduction: Proponents of peritoneal drainage (PD) hypothesize that it allows stabilization before laparotomy. We examined this hypothesis by comparing clinical status before and after either PD or primary laparotomy (LAP).
Methods: In an ethically approved, international, prospective randomized controlled trial (2002-2006), extremely low birth weight (<1000 g) infants with pneumoperitoneum received primary PD (n = 35) or LAP (n = 34). Physiologic data were collected prospectively and organ failure scores calculated and compared between preprocedure and day 1 after procedure. Data, expressed as mean +/- SD or median (range), were analyzed using appropriate statistical tests.
Results: There was no postprocedure improvement in either PD or LAP group comparing heart rate (PD, P = 1.0; LAP, P = .6), blood pressure (PD, P = .6; LAP, P = .8), inotrope requirement (PD, P = .2; LAP, P = .3), or Arterial partial pressure of oxygen/fraction of inspired oxygen ratio (PD, P = .1; LAP, P = .5). Infants managed with PD had a worsening cardiovascular status (P = .05). There were no differences in total organ failure score in either group (PD, P = .5; LAP, P = 1). Only 4 infants survived with PD alone with no difference between preprocedure and postprocedure organ failure score (P = .4).
Conclusions: Peritoneal drainage does not immediately improve clinical status in extremely low birth weight infants with bowel perforation. The use of PD as a stabilizing or temporizing measure is not supported by these results.
Copyright 2010 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.