BackgroundChildren with cow’s milk allergy (CMA) need a cow’s milk protein (CMP) free diet to prevent allergic reactions. For this, reliable allergy-information on the label of food products is essential to avoid products containing the allergen. On the other hand, both overzealous labeling and misdiagnosis that result in unnecessary elimination diets, can lead to potentially hazardous health situations. Our objective was to evaluate if excluding CMA by double-blind placebo-controlled food challenge (DBPCFC) prevents unnecessary elimination diets in the long term. Secondly, to determine the minimum eliciting dose (MED) for an acute allergic reaction to CMP in DBPCFC positive children.MethodsAll children with suspected CMA under our care (Oct’05 - Jun’09) were prospectively enrolled in a DBPCFC. Placebo and verum feedings were administered on two randomly assigned separate days. The MED was determined by noting the ‘lowest observed adverse effect level’ (LOAEL) in DBPCFC-positive children. Based on the outcomes of the DBPCFC a dietary advice was given. Parents were contacted by phone several months later about the diet of their child.Results116 children were available for analysis. In 76 children CMA was rejected. In 60 of them CMP was successfully reintroduced, in 2 the parents refused introduction, in another 3 the parents stopped reintroduction. In 9 children CMA symptoms reappeared. In 40 children CMA was confirmed. Infants aged ≤ 12 months in our study group have a higher cumulative distribution of MED than older children.ConclusionsExcluding CMA by DBPCFC successfully stopped unnecessary elimination diets in the long term in most children. The MEDs form potential useful information for offering dietary advice to patients and their caretakers.

Infants with ANH up to 15 mm have a low incidence of UTIs and surgery and a low incidence and benign course of underlying VUR. Therefore, noninvasive postnatal follow-up is justified and standard voiding cystourethrography should not be performed, but only in cases of ureteric dilatation.

Background: Neonatal intubation is stressful and should be performed with premedication. In the case of an INSURE (intubation/surfactant/extubation) procedure a short duration of action of the premedication used is needed to facilitate fast extubation. Given its pharmacological profile, remifentanil seems a suitable candidate. Objectives: The aim here was to evaluate the effect and side effects of remifentanil as a premedication for preterm neonates undergoing INSURE. Methods: A prospective, single-center study in a level III neonatal intensive care unit was conducted. The quality of sedation was assessed in preterm infants receiving remifentanil prior to intubation for the INSURE procedure. Intravenous remifentanil was administered quickly and followed by a saline flush in approximately 30 s. The quality of sedation was defined by a combination of adequate sedation score, good intubation conditions and absence of side effects. Results: The study was terminated after the inclusion of 14 patients because of the high rate of side effects and the poor intubation conditions. Adequate sedation was achieved in only 2 patients (14%). Six patients (43%) needed additional propofol to obtain adequate sedation. Chest wall rigidity occurred in 6 patients (43%). Conclusions: The rapid administration of remifentanil provides insufficient sedation and is associated with a high risk of chest wall rigidity in preterm neonates.

Background. Neonatal intubation is a stressful procedure that requires premedication to improve intubation conditions and reduce stress and adverse physiological responses. Premedication used during the INSURE (INtubation, SURfactant therapy, Extubation) procedure should have a very short duration of action with restoration of spontaneous breathing within a few minutes. Aims. To determine the best sedative for intubation during the INSURE procedure by systematic review of the literature. Methods. We reviewed all relevant studies reporting on premedication, distress, and time to restoration of spontaneous breathing during the INSURE procedure. Results. This review included 12 studies: two relatively small studies explicitly evaluated the effect of premedication (propofol and remifentanil) during the INSURE procedure, both showing good intubation conditions and an average extubation time of about 20 minutes. Ten studies reporting on fentanyl or morphine provided insufficient information about these items. Conclusions. Too little is known in the literature to draw a solid conclusion on which premedication could be best used during the INSURE procedure. Both remifentanil and propofol are suitable candidates but dose-finding studies to detect effective nontoxic doses in newborns with different gestational ages are necessary.

ObjectiveTo find propofol doses providing effective sedation without side effects in neonates of different gestational ages (GA) and postnatal ages (PNA).Design and settingProspective multicentere dose-finding study in 3 neonatal intensive care units.PatientsNeonates with a PNA <28 days requiring non-emergency endotracheal intubation.InterventionsNeonates were stratified into 8 groups based on GA and PNA. The first 5 neonates in every group received a dose of 1.0 mg/kg propofol. Based on sedative effect and side effects, the dose was increased or decreased in the next 5 patients until the optimal dose was found.Main outcome measuresThe primary outcome was the optimal single propofol starting dose that provides effective sedation without side effects in each age group.ResultsAfter inclusion of 91 patients, the study was prematurely terminated because the primary outcome was only reached in 13% of patients. Dose-finding was completed in 2 groups, but no optimal propofol dose was found. Effective sedation without side effects was achieved more often after a starting dose of 2.0 mg/kg (28%) than after 1.0 mg/kg (3%) and 1.5 mg/kg (9%). Propofol-induced hypotension occurred in 59% of patients. Logistic regression analyses showed that GA and PNA did not predict effective sedation or the occurrence of hypotension.ConclusionsEffective sedation without side effects is difficult to achieve with propofol and the optimal dose in different age groups of neonates could not be determined. The sedative effect of propofol and the occurrence of hypotension are unpredictable and show large inter-individual variability in the neonatal population.

We describe here the case of a boy who presented 2 days after birth with purpura fulminans on his feet and scalp. Laboratory investigations revealed signs of disseminated intravascular coagulation. An underlying coagulation disorder was suspected, and therapy with recombinant tissue plasminogen activator, fresh-frozen plasma, and unfractionated heparin was started. On the basis of plasma protein C activity and antigen levels of 0.02 and 0.03 IU/mL, respectively, after administration of fresh-frozen plasma, a diagnosis of severe protein C deficiency was established, and therapy with intravenous protein C concentrate (Ceprotin [Baxter, Deerfield, IL]) was started. Because of difficulties with venous access, we switched to subcutaneous administration after 6 weeks. The precise dosing schedule for subcutaneously administered protein C concentrate is unknown. In the literature, a trough level of protein C activity at >0.25 IU/mL is recommended to prevent recurrent thrombosis. During 1 year of follow-up our patient frequently had protein C activity levels at <0.25 IU/mL. Clinically, however, there was no recurrent thrombosis, and we kept the dosage unchanged. This report highlights 2 important points: (1) subcutaneously administered protein C concentrate is effective in treating severe protein C deficiency; and (2) in accordance with previous studies, after the acute phase trough levels of protein C activity at >0.25 IU/mL may not be necessary to prevent recurrent thrombosis. However, further research on the dosing, efficacy, and safety of protein C concentrate for prophylaxis and treatment of severe protein C deficiency is needed.

Background: Premedication for neonatal intubation facilitates the procedure and reduces stress and physiological disturbances. However, no validated scoring system to assess the effect of premedication prior to intubation is available. Objective: To evaluate the usefulness of an Intubation Readiness Score (IRS) to assess the effect of premedication prior to intubation in newborn infants. Methods: Two-center prospective study in neonates who needed endotracheal intubation. Intubation was performed using a standardized procedure with propofol 1–2 mg/kg as premedication. The level of sedation was assessed with the IRS by evaluating the motor response to a firm stimulus (1 = spontaneous movement; 2 = movement on slight touch; 3 = movement on firm stimulus; 4 = no movement). Intubation was proceeded if an adequate effect, defined as an IRS of 3 or 4, was reached. IRS was compared to the quality of intubation measured with the Viby-Mogensen intubation score. Results: A total of 115 patients, with a median gestational age of 27.7 weeks (interquartile range 5.3) and a median birth weight of 1,005 g (interquartile range 940), were included. An adequate IRS was achieved in 105 patients, 89 (85%) of whom also had a good Viby-Mogensen intubation score and 16 (15%) had an inadequate Viby-Mogensen intubation score. The positive predictive value of the IRS was 85%. Conclusions: Preintubation sedation assessment using the IRS can adequately predict optimal conditions during intubation in the majority of neonates. We suggest using the IRS in routine clinical care. Further research combining the IRS with other parameters could further improve the predictability of adequate sedation during intubation.

It is known that awake endotracheal intubation in newborns causes multiple harmful effects. 1-3 Therefore, in 2001 consensus was reached that only in the delivery room and in life-threating situations associated with the unavailability of intravenous access, tracheal intubation should be performed without the use of analgesia or sedation. 4 Almost twenty years later, the most effective and safe premedication strategy in the newborn population is still to be determined. Propofol is considered one of the acceptable options 5 and is shown to be very easy in use. 6 Therefore, propofol has been implemented into clinical practice. 7-11 In the past decade, several studies have appeared reporting on the use of propofol for neonatal intubation, with somewhat conflicting results about the sedative effect related to dose. 6,9,10,12,13 Results regarding the hypotensive effect of propofol are probably even more conflicting, varying from no or only a slight decrease in blood pressure, 6,11 to a more pronounced decrease in blood pressure