“…Prone positioning of mechanically ventilated infants post-operative repair of CDH has been associated with an improvement in oxygenation (PaO 2 /FiO 2 ratio) (p = 0.032) and a reduction in the alveolar-arterial oxygen difference (p = 0.043) (29). Limitations of that study, however, were that measures of oxygenation and respiratory function were only measured for 30 min in each position and were not related to the adverse longer-term pulmonary outcomes suffered by infants with CDH.…”
Optimisation of respiratory support of infants with congenital diaphragmatic hernia (CDH) is critical. Infants with CDH often have severe lung hypoplasia and abnormal development of their pulmonary vasculature, leading to ventilation perfusion mismatch. It is vital that lung protective ventilation strategies are employed during both initial stabilisation and post-surgical repair to avoid ventilator induced lung damage and oxygen toxicity to prevent further impairment to an already diminished gas-exchanging environment. There is a lack of robust evidence for the routine use of surfactant therapy during initial resuscitation of infants with CDH and thus administration cannot be recommended outside clinical trials. Additionally, inhaled nitric oxide has been shown to have no benefit in reducing the mortality rates of infants with CDH. Other therapeutic agents which beneficially act on pulmonary hypertension are currently being assessed in infants with CDH in randomised multicentre trials. The role of novel ventilatory modalities such as closed loop automated oxygen control, liquid ventilation and heliox therapy may offer promise for infants with CDH, but the benefits need to be determined in appropriately designed clinical trials.
“…Prone positioning of mechanically ventilated infants post-operative repair of CDH has been associated with an improvement in oxygenation (PaO 2 /FiO 2 ratio) (p = 0.032) and a reduction in the alveolar-arterial oxygen difference (p = 0.043) (29). Limitations of that study, however, were that measures of oxygenation and respiratory function were only measured for 30 min in each position and were not related to the adverse longer-term pulmonary outcomes suffered by infants with CDH.…”
Optimisation of respiratory support of infants with congenital diaphragmatic hernia (CDH) is critical. Infants with CDH often have severe lung hypoplasia and abnormal development of their pulmonary vasculature, leading to ventilation perfusion mismatch. It is vital that lung protective ventilation strategies are employed during both initial stabilisation and post-surgical repair to avoid ventilator induced lung damage and oxygen toxicity to prevent further impairment to an already diminished gas-exchanging environment. There is a lack of robust evidence for the routine use of surfactant therapy during initial resuscitation of infants with CDH and thus administration cannot be recommended outside clinical trials. Additionally, inhaled nitric oxide has been shown to have no benefit in reducing the mortality rates of infants with CDH. Other therapeutic agents which beneficially act on pulmonary hypertension are currently being assessed in infants with CDH in randomised multicentre trials. The role of novel ventilatory modalities such as closed loop automated oxygen control, liquid ventilation and heliox therapy may offer promise for infants with CDH, but the benefits need to be determined in appropriately designed clinical trials.
“…Excluded studies were duplicates, abstract‐only papers, manuscripts published before year 2000, those not in the English language, animal studies, and those describing pre‐natal CDH interventions. We included 27 studies 13–39 of which 13 were RCTs 13–25 and 14 articles were observational studies 26–39 . Figure 2 shows the PRISMA flowchart for the study review.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…When scrutinising publications and comparing the outcomes that were measured to those reported, we did uncover some evidence of selective reporting bias. For example, various RCTs did not report measurements on vital clinical signs despite specifying these as an outcome measure 16,25 …”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…• There is great need for international consensus on CDH outcome reporting. of which 13 were RCTs [13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25] and 14 articles were observational studies. [26][27][28][29][30][31][32][33][34][35][36][37][38][39] Figure 2 shows the PRISMA flowchart for the study review.…”
Section: Key Notesmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Overall, the studies included 2596 CDH patients. The mean number of index CDH patients was 96 per publication (range 5-691); 13/27 studies were RCTs, [13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25] and 14/27 were observational studies [26][27][28][29][30][31][32][33][34][35][36][37][38][39] ; 7/27 studies were multicentre collaborative works. Studies emerged from a variety of countries worldwide including the UK, Netherlands, Belgium, USA, Canada, Japan, Egypt, and Australia.…”
Aim
To review the selection, measurement and reporting of outcomes in studies of interventions in Congenital Diaphragmatic Hernia (CDH).
Methods
We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials from 2000–2020 for randomised trials and observational studies. Outcomes reported were classified into seven key domains modelled on the patient journey.
Results
Our search yielded 118 papers; 27 were eligible. The most frequent domains measured were ‘short‐term markers of disease activity’ (17/27), whereas long‐term outcomes (3/27) and outcomes relating to functional health status (8/27) were reported infrequently. There was heterogeneity in the methods and timing of outcome reporting. Primary outcomes were varied and not always clearly stated.
Conclusion
Long‐term health and functional outcomes involving interventional studies in CDH are infrequently reported, which hinders the process of shared decision‐making and evidence‐based healthcare. A CDH core outcome set is needed to standardise outcome reporting that is relevant to both families and healthcare teams.
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.