BackgroundWhile delayed umbilical cord clamping in preterm infants has shown to improve long-term neurological outcomes, infants who are thought to need resuscitation do not receive delayed cord clamping even though they may benefit the most. A mobile resuscitation platform allows infants to be resuscitated at the mother’s bedside with the cord intact. The newborn is supplied with placental blood during the resuscitation in view of the mother. The objective of the study is to assess the usability and acceptability of mobile resuscitation platform, LifeStart trolley, among the infants’ parents and perinatal providers.MethodsA resuscitation platform was present during every delivery that required advanced neonatal providers for high-risk deliveries. Perinatal providers and parents of the infants were given a questionnaire shortly after the delivery.Results60 neonatal subjects were placed on the trolley. The majority of deliveries were high risk for meconium-stained amniotic fluid (43%), and non-reassuring fetal heart rate (45%). About 50% of neonatal providers felt that there were some concerns regarding access to the baby. No parents were uncomfortable with the bedside neonatal interventions, and most parents perceived that communication was improved because of the proximity to the care team.ConclusionBedside resuscitation with umbilical cord intact through the use of a mobile resuscitation trolley is feasible, safe, and effective, but about half of the perinatal providers expressed concerns. Logistical issues such as improved space management and/or delivery setup should be considered in centers planning to perform neonatal resuscitation with an intact cord.
The routine targeting of higher than normal P goals may lead to a low incidence of hypocapnia and associated adverse events. Hypercapnia is common, and moderate hypercapnia may increase the risk of neurologic injury and provide little pulmonary benefit.
BackgroundThe seventh edition of the American Academy of Pediatrics Neonatal Resuscitation Program recommends the use of a cardiac monitor in infants that need resuscitation. Previous trials have shown that EKG heart rate is available before pulse rate from a pulse oximeter. To date no trial has looked at how the availability of electrocardiogram (EKG) affects clinical interventions in the delivery room.ObjectiveTo determine whether the availability of an EKG heart rate value and tracing to the clinical team has an effect on physiologic measures and related interventions during the stabilization of preterm infants.Design/MethodsForty (40) premature infants enrolled in a neuro-monitoring study (The Neu-Prem Trial: NCT02605733) who had an EKG monitor available were randomized to have the heart rate information from the bedside EKG monitor either displayed or not displayed to the clinical team. Heart rate, oxygen saturation, FiO2 and mean airway pressure from a data acquisition system were recorded every 2 seconds. Results were averaged over 30 seconds and the differences analyzed using two-tailed t-test. Interventions analyzed included time to first change in FiO2, first positive pressure ventilation, first increase in airway pressure, and first intubation.ResultsThere were no significant differences in time to clinical interventions between the blinded and unblinded group, despite the unblinded group having access to a visible heart rate at 66 +/- 20 compared to 114 +/- 39 seconds for the blinded group (p < .0001). Pulse rate from oximeter was lower than EKG heart rate during the first 2 minutes of life, but this was not significant.Conclusion(s)EKG provides an earlier, and more accurate heart rate than pulse rate from an oximeter during stabilization of preterm infants, allowing earlier intervention. All interventions were started earlier in the unblinded EKG group but these numbers were not significant in this small trial. Earlier EKG placement before pulse oximeter placement may affect other interventions, but this needs further study.
BackgroundIn 2015, the American Academy of Pediatrics recommended delayed umbilical cord clamping for at least 30–60 s for all infants. However, there is limited data regarding the maternal safety of delayed cord clamping in multiple pregnancies. We aimed to compare the maternal bleeding complications following early cord clamping (ECC) versus of delayed cord clamping (DCC) in multiple pregnancies.MethodsA retrospective cohort study of pregnant women with multiples who delivered live-born infants at Sharp Healthcare Hospitals in San Diego, CA, USA during January 1st, 2016 – September 30th, 2017. Bleeding complications of 295 women who underwent ECC (less than 30 s) were compared with 154 women who underwent DCC (more than 30 s). ECC or DCC was performed according to individual obstetrician discretion.ResultsFour hundred forty-nine women with multiple pregnancies (N = 910 infants) were included in the study. 252 (85.4%) women underwent cesarean section in ECC group vs. 99 (64.3%) in DCC group. 58 (19.7%) women delivered monochorionic twins in ECC group vs. 32 (20.8%) women in DCC group. There was no increase in maternal estimate blood loss when DCC was performed comparing to ECC. There were no differences in operative time, post-delivery decrease in hematocrits, rates of postpartum hemorrhage, bleeding complications, maternal blood transfusions and therapeutic hysterectomy between the two groups.ConclusionsNo differences in maternal bleeding complications were found with DCC in multiple pregnancies compared to ECC. Delayed cord clamping can be done safely in multiple pregnancies without any increased maternal risk.
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.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.