Using a Bedside Ultrasound to Decide When a Premature Baby Needs Surfactant

A plain-language look at a study of babies born before 32 weeks, testing whether a quick lung scan can guide breathing treatment better than oxygen readings alone

A new study of 89 very premature babies tested whether a painless bedside lung ultrasound—rather than clinical signs and oxygen levels—should decide which babies receive surfactant, the medicine that helps stiff, immature lungs stay open. Babies whose care was guided by ultrasound were far less likely to need a breathing tube (about 20% versus 47%), received the medicine sooner when they did need it, and had fewer chest X-rays, all without any sign of harm [1]. The findings suggest that "seeing" the lung directly can make treatment both gentler and more precise.

Why This Question Matters

Babies born many weeks early often struggle to breathe because their lungs have not yet made enough of a natural substance called surfactant. Surfactant works like a soapy coating that keeps the tiny air sacs in the lungs from collapsing with each breath. When a baby doesn't have enough, doctors can give a manufactured version straight into the lungs, and this treatment—together with gentle air pressure delivered through the nose (called CPAP)—is one of the great success stories of newborn medicine [2]. Since surfactant became widely available in the 1980s and 1990s, survival for premature babies has improved dramatically [3].

But there has always been a hard judgment call hidden inside this success: which babies need the medicine, and when? Doctors have learned that giving surfactant sooner rather than later, once a baby clearly needs it, leads to better outcomes [4], and that a technique of briefly placing a breathing tube only long enough to give the medicine—then quickly removing it—keeps more babies off the ventilator [5]. The problem is that a struggling newborn's breathing can look the same whether the cause is true surfactant deficiency or something else, such as extra fluid in the lungs. In fact, studies comparing diagnoses to what was actually found in the lungs have shown that doctors quite often labelled babies with the classic surfactant-deficiency condition when the real problem was different [6].

How Families and Clinicians Used to Face This

For decades, the main way doctors decided whether to give surfactant was to watch the baby's breathing effort and track how much extra oxygen the baby needed—a number called FiO₂. If the oxygen requirement climbed past a set point, the baby got the medicine. This approach is reasonable, but it is indirect: the oxygen number is a rough echo of what's happening deep in the lungs, and it can rise slowly. Waiting for it to cross a line can mean treating too late for a baby who truly needs help—while treating pre-emptively means some babies get a breathing tube and a medicine they never actually needed, along with the small but real risks that come with any invasive procedure [7]. Parents, meanwhile, often had little to look at but monitors and numbers.

Over the last ten years or so, doctors began using a small ultrasound probe—the same harmless, radiation-free technology used to look at babies before birth—to look directly at the lungs at the bedside. Researchers found that a simple lung "score," based on the patterns the ultrasound shows, matches how well a baby is oxygenating and can predict which babies will need surfactant [8]. An earlier randomized study found that ultrasound-guided care delivered the medicine much sooner than oxygen-based care [9], and larger multi-hospital work helped pin down a practical score to use as a treatment cut-off [10]. Expert groups then agreed on how to perform and interpret the scans reliably [11] and, most recently, on how to fold ultrasound into everyday breathing care [12].

What the Researchers Did

Doctors at a large hospital in Beijing, China, studied 89 babies born before 32 weeks who were having trouble breathing between August 2024 and May 2025 [1]. By the flip of a computerised coin, each baby was placed into one of two groups. In the ultrasound group (46 babies), a doctor scanned the lungs within the first hour of life; if the scan showed the surfactant-deficiency pattern and the lung score was high enough, the baby received surfactant right away. If the scan didn't fit that picture, doctors watched and waited, giving the medicine only if the baby's condition made it clearly necessary. In the comparison group (43 babies), doctors still did the scan—but they were not allowed to see it, and instead made decisions the traditional way, using breathing signs and oxygen levels. This clever setup let the researchers ask exactly what the ultrasound would have changed.

What They Found

The differences were striking. In the ultrasound group, only about 1 in 5 babies (19.6%) needed a breathing tube and ventilator, compared with nearly half (46.5%) in the comparison group. Fewer babies overall received surfactant in the ultrasound group (about 44% versus 74%), yet the babies who did need it got it sooner—at about 60 minutes of age versus about 88 minutes. Babies in the ultrasound group also had fewer chest X-rays in their first week of life. There were hints of other benefits, too—lower rates of a common heart-valve-related condition of prematurity and of poor early growth—though these were secondary findings that need more study. Importantly, the ultrasound group showed no signs of harm: rates of the serious complications doctors worry about in premature babies, such as chronic lung disease and eye or bowel problems, were no different between the groups [1].

It helps to put these numbers in everyday terms. A breathing tube and ventilator can be life-saving, but they are not gentle: threading a tube into a tiny windpipe and pushing air into fragile, immature lungs carries risks, and avoiding it whenever possible is one of the central goals of modern newborn care. So a strategy that lets roughly half as many babies skip the tube is meaningful, even though many babies in both groups avoided it altogether. Likewise, each chest X-ray delivers a small dose of radiation; a single X-ray is considered safe, but premature babies can accumulate many during a long hospital stay, and every one that can be safely avoided lowers their lifetime total. Because ultrasound uses sound waves rather than radiation and can be repeated as often as needed at the bedside, it lets the team gather the same information—often more of it—without adding to that tally. None of this replaces a doctor's judgment; it gives the doctor a clearer picture to judge with.

The heart of the result is a happy paradox: ultrasound led to less medicine overall but faster treatment for the babies who truly needed it. Because the scan lets doctors see whether the lungs actually have the surfactant-deficiency pattern, they can confidently spare babies whose breathing trouble comes from something else—while acting quickly for those who need help. The researchers even found that, in the comparison group, several babies had received surfactant even though their (hidden) scans didn't show the condition—treatment that might have been avoided if the images had been visible.

What This Means for Families, and What's Next

For parents, the practical message is reassuring. A quick, painless, radiation-free scan at the bedside may help the team make a more accurate, more personalised decision about a treatment that many premature babies receive—potentially avoiding a breathing tube, reducing X-rays, and giving the medicine sooner when it's genuinely needed. It also offers something families can understand: a picture of the lung, rather than a number on a monitor.

There are real limits to keep in mind. This was a single hospital's study, and it was fairly small; the doctors giving care could see the scans, so they couldn't be fully "blinded," and the babies were only followed until they went home or reached a corrected age of 36 weeks, so we don't yet know the long-term effects. The researchers are clear that larger studies across many hospitals, with longer follow-up, are needed before ultrasound-guided surfactant becomes standard everywhere [1]. What researchers are working on next is exactly that: confirming these benefits in bigger, more diverse groups of babies and checking whether the early advantages carry through to healthier lungs and development months and years later. For now, this study is an encouraging sign that a familiar, gentle technology can make one of the most important early decisions in newborn intensive care both safer and smarter.

References

  1. Zhang J, Yuan J, Xu J, Han T, Zhang Y, Liu H, Lu D, Liu Y. Prospective, non-blinded, randomized controlled trial of pulmonary surfactant administration guided by lung ultrasound in preterm infants with gestational age < 32 weeks. Children. 2025;12(12):1618. doi:10.3390/children12121618 ↩
  2. Sweet DG, Carnielli VP, Greisen G, Hallman M, Klebermass-Schrehof K, Ozek E, et al. European consensus guidelines on the management of respiratory distress syndrome: 2022 update. Neonatology. 2023;120(1):3–23. doi:10.1159/000528914 ↩
  3. Speer CP, Sweet DG, Halliday HL. Surfactant therapy: past, present and future. Early Hum Dev. 2013;89(Suppl 1):S22–S24. doi:10.1016/S0378-3782(13)70008-270008-2) ↩
  4. Bahadue FL, Soll R. Early versus delayed selective surfactant treatment for neonatal respiratory distress syndrome. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2012;11:CD001456. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD001456.pub2 ↩
  5. Stevens TP, Harrington EW, Blennow M, Soll RF. Early surfactant administration with brief ventilation vs. selective surfactant and continued mechanical ventilation for preterm infants with or at risk for respiratory distress syndrome. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2007;4:CD003063. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD003063.pub3 ↩
  6. Rocha G, Rodrigues M, Guimarães H. Respiratory distress syndrome of the preterm neonate—placenta and necropsy as witnesses. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2011;24(1):148–151. doi:10.3109/14767058.2010.482613 ↩
  7. Glaser K, Bamat NA, Wright CJ. Can we balance early exogenous surfactant therapy and non-invasive respiratory support to optimise outcomes in extremely preterm infants? A nuanced review of the current literature. Arch Dis Child Fetal Neonatal Ed. 2023;108(6):554–560. doi:10.1136/archdischild-2022-324530 ↩
  8. Brat R, Yousef N, Klifa R, Reynaud S, Shankar Aguilera S, De Luca D. Lung ultrasonography score to evaluate oxygenation and surfactant need in neonates treated with continuous positive airway pressure. JAMA Pediatr. 2015;169(8):e151797. doi:10.1001/jamapediatrics.2015.1797 ↩
  9. Rodriguez-Fanjul J, Jordan I, Balaguer M, Batista-Muñoz A, Ramon M, Bobillo-Perez S. Early surfactant replacement guided by lung ultrasound in preterm newborns with RDS: the ULTRASURF randomised controlled trial. Eur J Pediatr. 2020;179(12):1913–1920. doi:10.1007/s00431-020-03744-y ↩
  10. Raimondi F, Migliaro F, Corsini I, Meneghin F, Pierri L, Salomè S, et al. Neonatal lung ultrasound and surfactant administration: a pragmatic, multicenter study. Chest. 2021;160(6):2178–2186. doi:10.1016/j.chest.2021.06.076 ↩
  11. Liu J, Guo G, Kurepa D, Feletti F, Hussain N, Alonso-Ojembarrena A, et al. Specification and guideline for technical aspects and scanning parameter settings of neonatal lung ultrasound examination. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2022;35(5):1003–1016. doi:10.1080/14767058.2021.1940943 ↩
  12. Liu J, Kurepa D, Feletti F, Alonso-Ojembarrena A, Lovrenski J, Copetti R, et al. Guidelines for the use of lung ultrasound to optimise the management of neonatal respiratory distress: international expert consensus. BMC Med. 2025;23:154. doi:10.1186/s12916-025-03879-5 ↩