Objective To investigate if the use of a visible respiratory function monitor (RFM) to use lower tidal volumes (Vts) during positive pressure ventilation (PPV) in the delivery room (DR) reduces the need of surfactant administration and invasive mechanical ventilation during the first 72 hours after birth of preterm infants <32 weeks' gestational age (GA).
Study Design Infants <32 weeks' GA (n = 106) requiring noninvasive PPV were monitored with a RFM at birth and randomized to visible (n = 54) or masked (n = 52) display on RFM. Pulmonary data were recorded during the first 10 minutes after birth. Secondary analysis stratified patients by GA (<28, 28–29+6, or ≥30 weeks).
Results Median expiratory Vts during inflations were greater in the masked group (7 mL/kg) than in the visible group (5.8 mL/kg; p = 0.001) same as peak inflation pressure (PIP) administered (21.5 vs. 19.7 cmH2O; p < 0.001). Consequently, minute volumes were greater in the masked group (256 vs. 214 mL/kg/min; p < 0.001), with no differences in respiratory rate. These differences were higher in those <30 weeks' GA. There was no difference in the need of surfactant administration or intubation during the first 72 hours of age.
Conclusion Using a RFM in the DR prevents the use of large Vt and PIP during respiratory support inflations, mostly in the more immature newborn infants, but with no other short-term benefits.
ImportanceAnimal and observational human studies report that delivery of excessive tidal volume (VT) at birth is associated with lung and brain injury. Using a respiratory function monitor (RFM) to guide VT delivery might reduce injury and improve outcomes.ObjectiveTo determine whether use of an RFM in addition to clinical assessment versus clinical assessment alone during mask ventilation in the delivery room reduces in-hospital mortality and morbidity of infants <37 weeks’ gestation.Study selectionRandomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing RFM in addition to clinical assessment versus clinical assessment alone during mask ventilation in the delivery room of infants born <37 weeks’ gestation.Data analysisRisk of bias was assessed using Covidence Collaboration tool and pooled into a meta-analysis using a random-effects model. The primary outcome was death prior to discharge.Main outcomeDeath before hospital discharge.ResultsThree RCTs enrolling 443 infants were combined in a meta-analysis. The pooled analysis showed no difference in rates of death before discharge with an RFM versus no RFM, relative risk (RR) 95% (CI) 0.98 (0.64 to 1.48). The pooled analysis suggested a significant reduction for brain injury (a combination of intraventricular haemorrhage and periventricular leucomalacia) (RR 0.65 (0.48 to 0.89), p=0.006) and for intraventricular haemorrhage (RR 0.69 (0.50 to 0.96), p=0.03) in infants receiving positive pressure ventilation with an RFM versus no RFM.ConclusionIn infants <37 weeks, an RFM in addition to clinical assessment compared with clinical assessment during mask ventilation resulted in similar in-hospital mortality, significant reduction for any brain injury and intraventricular haemorrhage. Further trials are required to determine whether RFMs should be routinely available for neonatal resuscitation.
The SARS-CoV-2 pandemic has created new scenarios that require modifications to the usual cardiopulmonary resuscitation protocols. The current clinical guidelines on the management of cardiorespiratory arrest do not include recommendations for situations that apply to this context. Therefore, the National Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation Plan of the Spanish Society of Intensive and Critical Care Medicine and Coronary Units (SEMICYUC), in collaboration with the Spanish Group of Pediatric and Neonatal CPR and with the Teaching Life Support in Primary Care program of the Spanish Society of Family and Community Medicine (SEMFyC), have written these recommendations, which are divided into five parts that address the main aspects for each healthcare setting. This article consists of an executive summary of them.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.