T-piece resuscitator or self-inflating bag during neonatal resuscitation: a scoping review.

BACKGROUND: To identify the evidence for administering positive pressure ventilation (PPV) to infants at birth by either T-piece resuscitator (TPR) or self-inflating bag (SIB), and to determine whether a full systematic review (SR) is warranted. METHODS: Guided by the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for scoping reviews, eligible studies included peer-reviewed human studies, prospectively or retrospectively comparing a TPR vs. SIB for administering PPV at birth. Databases searched were OVID Medline, PubMed, Embase and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. Review Manager software was used for the data analysis. RESULTS: Following electronic literature search and review, data from four eligible studies (3 RCT and 1 observational study), enrolling a total of 2889 patients, were included. Studies differed regarding the investigated populations, reported outcomes and came from different geographical areas. In particular for preterm infants, use of TPR for providing PPV may improve survival, result in fewer intubations at birth and decrease the incidence of bronchopulmonary dysplasia. CONCLUSIONS: This scoping review identified two new studies with substantive new evidence, pointing towards improved survival, decreased bronchopulmonary dysplasia and fewer intubations at birth, in particular among preterm infants treated with TPR. Full SR of the literature is advised. IMPACT: This scoping review identified studies comparing TPR vs. SIB for respiratory support of newborn infants previously not included in the International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation (ILCOR) recommendations. Our review found substantive new evidence highlighting that device choice may impact the outcomes of compromised newborn infants'. This scoping review stipulates the need for full SR and updated meta-analysis of studies investigating supportive equipment for stabilizing infants at birth in order to inform ILCOR treatment recommendations.

Very preterm birth before arrival at hospital.

BACKGROUND: Our aim was to report perinatal characteristics of very preterm births before arrival (BBAs) at a hospital, and perinatal and infant mortality rates up to one year, comparing BBAs with births in a hospital. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A population-based cohort study of 22-31 weeks' gestation births in the state of Victoria, Australia from 1990-2009. BBAs were defined as unintentional births at home or on route to hospital. Perinatal data were obtained from the Department of Health and Human Services, Victoria. Perinatal and infant mortality data comparing BBAs with births in hospitals were analysed by logistic regression, adjusted for gestational age, birthweight and sex. RESULTS: One hundred and thirty-three BBAs were recorded: 51 (38%) stillbirths and 82 (62%) livebirths. Compared with births in a hospital, BBAs were less mature (26.3 weeks (SD 2.9) vs 27.7 weeks (SD 2.8), P < 0.001) and a higher proportion were born to teenagers: 13% versus 5% (adjusted odds ratio (aOR) 2.86, P < 0.001). BBAs were significantly more likely to be stillborn (aOR 2.13, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.41, 3.23, P < 0.001) die within 28 days of livebirth (aOR 2.97, 95% CI 1.54, 5.73, P = 0.001) or die within a year of livebirth (aOR 2.87, 95% CI 1.51, 5.46, P = 0.001) compared with hospital births. Overall, 54 BBAs survived to one year (41% all BBAs, 67% liveborn BBAs), compared with 69% of hospital births (87% of livebirths). CONCLUSIONS: Very preterm birth before arrival is more common in teenagers and is associated with significantly increased risks of perinatal and infant mortality compared with birth in a hospital.

Oxygen saturation and outcomes in preterm infants.

BACKGROUND: The clinically appropriate range for oxygen saturation in preterm infants is unknown. Previous studies have shown that infants had reduced rates of retinopathy of prematurity when lower targets of oxygen saturation were used. METHODS: In three international randomized, controlled trials, we evaluated the effects of targeting an oxygen saturation of 85 to 89%, as compared with a range of 91 to 95%, on disability-free survival at 2 years in infants born before 28 weeks' gestation. Halfway through the trials, the oximeter-calibration algorithm was revised. Recruitment was stopped early when an interim analysis showed an increased rate of death at 36 weeks in the group with a lower oxygen saturation. We analyzed pooled data from patients and now report hospital-discharge outcomes. RESULTS: A total of 2448 infants were recruited. Among the 1187 infants whose treatment used the revised oximeter-calibration algorithm, the rate of death was significantly higher in the lower-target group than in the higher-target group (23.1% vs. 15.9%; relative risk in the lower-target group, 1.45; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.15 to 1.84; P=0.002). There was heterogeneity for mortality between the original algorithm and the revised algorithm (P=0.006) but not for other outcomes. In all 2448 infants, those in the lower-target group for oxygen saturation had a reduced rate of retinopathy of prematurity (10.6% vs. 13.5%; relative risk, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.63 to 1.00; P=0.045) and an increased rate of necrotizing enterocolitis (10.4% vs. 8.0%; relative risk, 1.31; 95% CI, 1.02 to 1.68; P=0.04). There were no significant between-group differences in rates of other outcomes or adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: Targeting an oxygen saturation below 90% with the use of current oximeters in extremely preterm infants was associated with an increased risk of death. (Funded by the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council and others; BOOST II Current Controlled Trials number, ISRCTN00842661, and Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry numbers, ACTRN12605000055606 and ACTRN12605000253606.).

What are we telling the parents of extremely preterm babies?

BACKGROUND: Parent counselling and decision-making regarding the management of preterm labour and birth are influenced by information provided by healthcare professionals regarding potential infant outcomes. AIM: The aim of this study was to determine whether perinatal healthcare providers had accurate perceptions of survival and major neurosensory disability rates of very preterm infants born in non-tertiary hospitals ('outborn') and tertiary perinatal centres ('inborn'). MATERIALS AND METHODS: A web-based survey was distributed to midwives, nurses, obstetricians and neonatologists working in non-tertiary and tertiary maternity hospitals, and the perinatal/neonatal emergency transport services in Victoria, Australia. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Estimates of survival rates at 24 and 28-weeks' gestation were compared with actual survival rates of a population-based cohort of 24 and 28-weeks' gestation infants, born free of lethal anomalies in Victoria in 2001-2009. Estimates of major neurosensory disability rates in 24 and 28-week survivors were compared with actual disability rates in 24 and 28-week children born in Victoria averaged over three eras: 1991-1992, 1997 and 2005. RESULTS: Response rates varied as follows: 83% of non-tertiary midwives, 4% of obstetricians, 55% of tertiary centre staff and 68% of transport team staff responded (total of 30%). Overall, respondents underestimated survival and overestimated major neurosensory disability rates in both outborn and inborn 24 and 28-week infants. Outborn infants were perceived to have much worse prospects for survival and for survival with major disability compared with inborn peers. CONCLUSION: Many clinicians overestimated rates of adverse outcomes. These clinicians may be misinforming parents about their child's potential for a favourable outcome.

Why birthplace still matters for infants born before 32 weeks: Infant mortality associated with birth at 22-31 weeks' gestation in non-tertiary hospitals in Victoria over two decades.

BACKGROUND: Very preterm infants born in non-tertiary hospitals ('outborn') are known to have higher mortality rates compared with infants 'inborn' in tertiary centres. AIM: The aim of this study was to report changes over time in the incidence of outborn livebirths, 22-31 weeks and infant mortality rates for outborn compared with inborn births. METHODS: We conducted a population-based cohort study of consecutive livebirths, 22-31 weeks' gestation in Victoria from 1990 to 2009. The relationship between birthplace, gestational age, birthweight, sex and infant mortality were analysed by logistic regression. RESULTS: There were 13,760 livebirths, 22-31 weeks: 14% were outborn. The proportion of outborn livebirths fell from 19% in 1991 to a nadir of 9% in 1997, but climbed to 17% by 2009. At all times, outborns had higher mortality rates compared with inborns. The overall infant mortality rate was 250.6 per 1000 outborn compared with 113.3 per 1000 inborn livebirths (adjusted odds ratio (aOR) 2.76 (95% CI 2.32, 3.27, P < 0.001). There were no differences between outborn and inborn mortality risks for 22-week livebirths (OR 7.04, 95% CI 0.87, 56.8, P = 0.067), but there were at 23-27 weeks (aOR 3.16, 95% CI 2.52, 3.96, P < 0.001) and at 28-31 weeks (aOR 1.66, 95% CI 1.19, 2.31, P = 0.003). Over time, mortality rates fell for inborn 23-27 week infants. Mortality rates fell for outborn 23-27 week infants in 1990-2005, but rose in 2006-2009. CONCLUSIONS: Outborn livebirths at 22-31 weeks' gestation occur too frequently and are associated with a significantly increased risk of mortality. Strategies to reduce outborn livebirths are required.

Documentation during neonatal resuscitation: a systematic review.

OBJECTIVE: Accurate documentation in healthcare is necessary for ethical, legal, research and quality improvement purposes. In this review, we aimed to evaluate the accuracy of methods of documentation of delivery room resuscitations. METHODS: A systematic literature search in MEDLINE was conducted to identify original studies that reported the quality of documentation records during newborn resuscitation in the delivery room. Data extracted from the studies included population characteristics, methodology, documentation protocols, use of gold standard and main results (initial assessment of heart rate and peripheral oxygen saturation, respiratory support and supplementary oxygen). RESULTS: In total, 197 records were screened after initial database search, of which seven studies met the inclusion criteria and were finally included in this review. Four studies were chart reviews and three studies compared conventional documentation methods with video recording. Only one study tested an intervention to improve documentation. Documentation was often inaccurate and important resuscitation events and interventions were poorly recorded. Lack of uniformity among studies preclude pooled analysis, but it seems that complex or advanced procedures were more accurately reported than basic interventions. CONCLUSIONS: There is little literature regarding accuracy of documentation during neonatal resuscitation, but current quality of documentation seems to be unsatisfactory. There is a need for consensus guidelines and innovative solutions in newborn resuscitation documentation.

Outcomes of infants born at 22-27 weeks' gestation in Victoria according to outborn/inborn birth status.

OBJECTIVES: To compare mortality and serious morbidity rates between outborn and inborn livebirths at 22-27 weeks' gestation. DESIGN: Population-based cohort study. SETTING: Victoria, Australia. PATIENTS: Livebirths at 22-27 weeks' gestation free of major malformations in 2010-2011. INTERVENTIONS: Outcome data for outborn (born outside a tertiary perinatal centre) infants compared with inborn (born in a tertiary perinatal centre) infants were analysed by logistic regression, adjusted for gestational age, birth weight and sex. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Infant mortality and serious morbidity rates to hospital discharge. RESULTS: 541 livebirths free of major malformations were recorded. By 1 year, 49 (58%) outborns and 140 (31%) inborns died (adjusted OR (aOR) 2.78, 95% CI 1.52 to 5.09, p=0.001). In total, 445 infants were admitted to neonatal intensive care unit (NICU); 93 died by 1 year (14/49 outborns and 79/396 inborns), (aOR 1.75, 95% CI 0.87 to 3.55, p=0.12). There were no significant differences in rates of necrotising enterocolitis, intraventricular haemorrhage, retinopathy of prematurity, bronchopulmonary dysplasia (BPD) or the combined outcome of death or BPD in outborn infants compared with inborn infants. Outborns had an increased risk of cystic periventricular leukomalacia (cPVL) compared with inborns (12.2% vs 2.8%, respectively; aOR 5.34, 95% CI 1.84 to 15.54, p=0.002). CONCLUSIONS: Mortality rates remained higher for outborn livebirths at 22-27 weeks' gestation compared with inborn peers in 2010-2011. Outborn infants admitted to NICU did not have substantially different rates of mortality or serious morbidity compared with inborns, with the exception of cPVL. Longer-term health consequences of outborn birth before 28 weeks' gestation need to be determined.

Does measuring respiratory function improve neonatal ventilation?

AIMS: To determine whether using a respiratory function monitor alters clinicians' choice of ventilator settings, tidal volumes or blood gases in the first 48 h of ventilation. METHODS: Clinicians were trained to use a respiratory function monitor to optimize neonatal ventilation. Thirty-five infants, weighing < 2 kg, treated with the Infant Star ventilator were randomized to have a respiratory function monitor display visible or concealed. All reasons for altering ventilator settings were noted. Data on ventilator parameters and clinical care were collected hourly. The primary outcome was the mean peak pressure used during the first 48 h. RESULTS: There were no statistically significant differences in peak pressures, tidal volumes or arterial carbon dioxide levels between the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: Using the Florian respiratory function monitor in the first 48 h of ventilation with the Infant Star ventilator did not alter the choice of ventilator settings, tidal or minute volumes or arterial blood gases. Possible explanations for this result include lack of power due to the small numbers recruited and bias due to the unblinded nature of the trial.