No abstract

No abstract

The SARS-CoV-2 pandemic has had a significant impact worldwide, particularly in middle- and low-income countries. While this impact has been well-recognized in certain age groups, the effects, both direct and indirect, on the neonatal population remain largely unknown. There are placental changes associated, though the contributions to maternal and fetal illness have not been fully determined. The rate of premature delivery has increased and SARS-CoV-2 infection is proportionately higher in premature neonates, which appears to be related to premature delivery for maternal reasons rather than an increase in spontaneous preterm labor. There is much room for expansion, including long-term data on outcomes for affected babies. Though uncommon, there has been evidence of adverse events in neonates, including Multisystem Inflammatory Syndrome in Children, associated with COVID-19 (MIS-C). There are recommendations for reduction of viral transmission to neonates, though more research is required to determine the role of passive immunization of the fetus via maternal vaccination. There is now considerable evidence suggesting that the severe visitation restrictions implemented early in the pandemic have negatively impacted the care of the neonate and the experiences of both parents and healthcare professionals alike. Ongoing collaboration is required to determine the full impact, and guidelines for future management. Impact Comprehensive review of current available evidence related to impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on neonates, effects on their health, impact on their quality of care and indirect influences on their clinical course, including comparisons with other age groups. Reference to current evidence for maternal experience of infection and how it impacts the fetus and then neonate. Outline of the need for ongoing research, including specific areas in which there are significant gaps in knowledge.

Introduction Neonatal sepsis is a leading cause of infant mortality worldwide with non-specific and varied presentation. We aimed to catalogue the current definitions of neonatal sepsis in published randomised controlled trials (RCTs). Method A systematic search of the Embase and Cochrane databases was performed for RCTs which explicitly stated a definition for neonatal sepsis. Definitions were sub-divided into five primary criteria for infection (culture, laboratory findings, clinical signs, radiological evidence and risk factors) and stratified by qualifiers (early/late-onset and likelihood of sepsis). Results Of 668 papers screened, 80 RCTs were included and 128 individual definitions identified. The single most common definition was neonatal sepsis defined by blood culture alone (n = 35), followed by culture and clinical signs (n = 29), and then laboratory tests/clinical signs (n = 25). Blood culture featured in 83 definitions, laboratory testing featured in 48 definitions while clinical signs and radiology featured in 80 and 8 definitions, respectively. Discussion A diverse range of definitions of neonatal sepsis are used and based on microbiological culture, laboratory tests and clinical signs in contrast to adult and paediatric sepsis which use organ dysfunction. An international consensus-based definition of neonatal sepsis could allow meta-analysis and translate results to improve outcomes.

Background The lack of a consensus definition of neonatal sepsis and a core outcome set (COS) proves a substantial impediment to research that influences policy and practice relevant to key stakeholders, patients and parents. Methods A systematic review of the literature was performed according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. In the included studies, the described outcomes were extracted in accordance with the provisions of the Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials (COMET) handbook and registered. Results Among 884 abstracts identified, 90 randomised controlled trials (RCTs) were included in this review. Only 30 manuscripts explicitly stated the primary and/or secondary outcomes. A total of 88 distinct outcomes were recorded across all 90 studies included. These were then assigned to seven different domains in line with the taxonomy for classification proposed by the COMET initiative. The most frequently reported outcome was survival with 74% (n = 67) of the studies reporting an outcome within this domain. Conclusions This systematic review constitutes one of the initial phases in the protocol for developing a COS in neonatal sepsis. The paucity of standardised outcome reporting in neonatal sepsis hinders comparison and synthesis of data. The final phase will involve a Delphi Survey to generate a COS in neonatal sepsis by consensus recommendation. Impact This systematic review identified a wide variation of outcomes reported among published RCTs on the management of neonatal sepsis. The paucity of standardised outcome reporting hinders comparison and synthesis of data and future meta-analyses with conclusive recommendations on the management of neonatal sepsis are unlikely. The final phase will involve a Delphi Survey to determine a COS by consensus recommendation with input from all relevant stakeholders.

<b><i>Background:</i></b> We aimed to evaluate the policies and practices about neonatal resuscitation in a large sample of European hospitals. <b><i>Methods:</i></b> This was a cross-sectional electronic survey. A 91-item questionnaire focusing on the current delivery room practices in neonatal resuscitation domains was individually sent to the directors of 730 European neonatal facilities or (in 5 countries) made available as a Web-based link. A comparison was made between hospitals with ≤2,000 and those with &#x3e;2,000 births/year and between hospitals in 5 European areas (Eastern Europe, Italy, Mediterranean countries, Turkey, and Western Europe). <b><i>Results:</i></b> The response rate was 57% and included participants from 33 European countries. In 2018, approximately 1.27 million births occurred at the participating hospitals, with a median of 1,900 births/center (interquartile range: 1,400–3,000). Routine antenatal counseling (<i>p</i> &#x3c; 0.05), the presence of a resuscitation team at all deliveries (<i>p</i> &#x3c; 0.01), umbilical cord management (<i>p</i> &#x3c; 0.01), practices for thermal management (<i>p</i> &#x3c; 0.05), and heart rate monitoring (<i>p</i> &#x3c; 0.01) were significantly different between hospitals with ≤2,000 births/year and those with &#x3e;2,000 births/year. Ethical and educational aspects were similar between hospitals with low and high birth volumes. Significant variance in practice, ethical decision-making, and training programs were found between hospitals in 5 different European areas. <b><i>Conclusions:</i></b> Several recommendations about available equipment and clinical practices recommended by the international guidelines are already implemented by centers in Europe, but a large variance still persists. Clinicians and stakeholders should consider this information when allocating resources and planning European perinatal programs.

The goal of perinatal medicine is to provide professionally responsible clinical management of the conditions and diagnoses of pregnant, fetal, and neonatal patients. The New York Declaration of the International Academy of Perinatal Medicine, “Women and children First – or Last?” was directed toward the ethical challenges of perinatal medicine in middle-income and low-income countries. The global COVID-19 pandemic presents common ethical challenges in all countries, independent of their national wealth. In this paper the World Association of Perinatal Medicine provides ethics-based guidance for professionally responsible advocacy for women and children first during the COVID-19 pandemic. We first present an ethical framework that explains ethical reasoning, clinically relevant ethical principles and professional virtues, and decision making with pregnant patients and parents. We then apply this ethical framework to evidence-based treatment and its improvement, planned home birth, ring-fencing obstetric services, attendance of spouse or partner at birth, and the responsible management of organizational resources. Perinatal physicians should focus on the mission of perinatal medicine to put women and children first and frame-shifting when necessary to put the lives and health of the population of patients served by a hospital first.

No abstract