curosurf versus bles in the treatment of preterm neonates with respiratory distress syndrome: a randomized clinical trial

Background: two natural surfactants, curosurf and bles, are commonly used for the treatment of respiratory distress syndrome (rds). animal-derived surfactants have different pharmacological and biochemical features, and these differences might influence their clinical efficacy and complications. objectives: the present study aimed to compare the clinical effectiveness and complications of curosurf and bles in the management of preterm neonates with rds. methods: this randomized clinical trial was conducted on 160 neonates with rds and a gestational age of ≤ 32 weeks. patients were randomly assigned to two intervention groups to receive either curosurf (n = 80) or bles (n = 80). complications of prematurity, mortality, and the effectiveness of surfactant therapy were compared between the study groups. results: there were statistically significant differences between the curosurf group and the bles group in the length of hospital stay (20.3 ± 14.4 vs. 27.3 ± 18.8 days, p = 0.01), number of surfactant injections (1.2 ± 0.4 vs. 1.4 ± 0.4, p = 0.006), and need for a second dose (21.2% vs. 41.2%, p = 0.005). in terms of complications, both groups showed no considerable differences. conclusions: compared to bles, curosurf may be more effective in the treatment of preterm neonates with rds. further clinical trials with robust designs and long-term follow-up are needed to compare these surfactants.