Laryngeal Mask Airway in Neonatal Resuscitation: A Survey of the Union of European Neonatal and Perinatal Societies.

INTRODUCTION: Laryngeal mask airway (LMA) use in neonatal resuscitation is limited despite existing evidence and recommendations. This survey investigated the knowledge and experience of healthcare providers on the use of the LMA and explored barriers and solutions for implementation. METHODS: This online, cross-sectional survey on LMA in neonatal resuscitation involved healthcare professionals of the Union of European Neonatal and Perinatal Societies (UENPS). RESULTS: A total of 858 healthcare professionals from 42 countries participated in the survey. Only 6% took part in an LMA-specific course. Some delivery rooms were not equipped with LMA (26.1%). LMA was mainly considered after the failure of a face mask (FM) or endotracheal tube (ET), while the first choice was limited to neonates with upper airway malformations. LMA and FM were considered easier to position but less effective than ET, while LMA was considered less invasive than ET but more invasive than FM. Participants felt less competent and experienced with LMA than FM and ET. The lack of confidence in LMA was perceived as the main barrier to its implementation in neonatal resuscitation. More training, supervision, and device availability in delivery wards were suggested as possible actions to overcome those barriers. CONCLUSION: Our survey confirms previous findings on limited knowledge, experience, and confidence with LMA, which is usually considered an option after the failure of FM/ET. Our findings highlight the need for increasing the availability of LMA in delivery wards. Moreover, increasing LMA training and having an LMA expert supervisor during clinical practice may improve the implementation of LMA use in neonatal clinical practice.

A Survey of the Union of European Neonatal and Perinatal Societies on Neonatal Respiratory Care in Neonatal Intensive Care Units.

(1) Background: Our survey aimed to gather information on respiratory care in Neonatal Intensive Care Units (NICUs) in the European and Mediterranean region. (2) Methods: Cross-sectional electronic survey. An 89-item questionnaire focusing on the current modes, devices, and strategies employed in neonatal units in the domain of respiratory care was sent to directors/heads of 528 NICUs. The adherence to the "European consensus guidelines on the management of respiratory distress syndrome" was assessed for comparison. (3) Results: The response rate was 75% (397/528 units). In most Delivery Rooms (DRs), full resuscitation is given from 22 to 23 weeks gestational age. A T-piece device with facial masks or short binasal prongs are commonly used for respiratory stabilization. Initial FiO2 is set as per guidelines. Most units use heated humidified gases to prevent heat loss. SpO2 and ECG monitoring are largely performed. Surfactant in the DR is preferentially given through Intubation-Surfactant-Extubation (INSURE) or Less-Invasive-Surfactant-Administration (LISA) techniques. DR caffeine is widespread. In the NICUs, most of the non-invasive modes used are nasal CPAP and nasal intermittent positive-pressure ventilation. Volume-targeted, synchronized intermittent positive-pressure ventilation is the preferred invasive mode to treat acute respiratory distress. Pulmonary recruitment maneuvers are common approaches. During NICU stay, surfactant administration is primarily guided by FiO2 and SpO2/FiO2 ratio, and it is mostly performed through LISA or INSURE. Steroids are used to facilitate extubation and prevent bronchopulmonary dysplasia. (4) Conclusions: Overall, clinical practices are in line with the 2022 European Guidelines, but there are some divergences. These data will allow stakeholders to make comparisons and to identify opportunities for improvement.

Variation in delivery room management of preterm infants across Europe: a survey of the Union of European Neonatal and Perinatal Societies.

The aim of the present study, endorsed by the Union of European Neonatal and Perinatal Societies (UENPS) and the Italian Society of Neonatology (SIN), was to analyze the current delivery room (DR) stabilization practices in a large sample of European birth centers that care for preterm infants with gestational age (GA) < 33 weeks. Cross-sectional electronic survey was used in this study. A questionnaire focusing on the current DR practices for infants < 33 weeks' GA, divided in 6 neonatal resuscitation domains, was individually sent to the directors of European neonatal facilities, made available as a web-based link. A comparison was made between hospitals grouped into 5 geographical areas (Eastern Europe (EE), Italy (ITA), Mediterranean countries (MC), Turkey (TUR), and Western Europe (WE)) and between high- and low-volume units across Europe. Two hundred and sixty-two centers from 33 European countries responded to the survey. At the time of the survey, approximately 20,000 very low birth weight (VLBW, < 1500 g) infants were admitted to the participating hospitals, with a median (IQR) of 48 (27-89) infants per center per year. Significant differences between the 5 geographical areas concerned: the volume of neonatal care, ranging from 86 (53-206) admitted VLBW infants per center per year in TUR to 35 (IQR 25-53) in MC; the umbilical cord (UC) management, being the delayed cord clamping performed in < 50% of centers in EE, ITA, and MC, and the cord milking the preferred strategy in TUR; the spotty use of some body temperature control strategies, including thermal mattress mainly employed in WE, and heated humidified gases for ventilation seldom available in MC; and some of the ventilation practices, mainly in regard to the initial FiO2 for < 28 weeks' GA infants, pressures selected for ventilation, and the preferred interface to start ventilation. Specifically, 62.5% of TUR centers indicated the short binasal prongs as the preferred interface, as opposed to the face mask which is widely adopted as first choice in > 80% of the rest of the responding units; the DR surfactant administration, which ranges from 44.4% of the birth centers in MC to 87.5% in WE; and, finally, the ethical issues around the minimal GA limit to provide full resuscitation, ranging from 22 to 25 weeks across Europe. A comparison between high- and low-volume units showed significant differences in the domains of UC management and ventilation practices.    Conclusion: Current DR practice and ethical choices show similarities and divergences across Europe. Some areas of assistance, like UC management and DR ventilation strategies, would benefit of standardization. Clinicians and stakeholders should consider this information when allocating resources and planning European perinatal programs. What is Known: • Delivery room (DR) support of preterm infants has a direct influence on both immediate survival and long-term morbidity. • Resuscitation practices for preterm infants often deviate from the internationally defined algorithms. What is New: • Current DR practice and ethical choices show similarities and divergences across Europe. Some areas of assistance, like UC management and DR ventilation strategies, would benefit of standardization. • Clinicians and stakeholders should consider this information when allocating resources and planning European perinatal programs.

Neonatal resuscitation practices in Italy: a survey of the Italian Society of Neonatology (SIN) and the Union of European Neonatal and Perinatal Societies (UENPS).

BACKGROUND: Providing appropriate care at birth remains a crucial strategy for reducing neonatal mortality and morbidity. We aimed to evaluate the consistency of practice and the adherence to the international guidelines on neonatal resuscitation in level-I and level-II Italian birth hospitals. METHODS: This was a cross-sectional electronic survey. A 91-item questionnaire focusing on current delivery room practices in neonatal resuscitation was sent to the directors of 418 Italian neonatal facilities. RESULTS: The response rate was 61.7% (258/418), comprising 95.6% (110/115) from level-II and 49.0% (148/303) from level-I centres. In 2018, approximately 300,000 births occurred at the participating hospitals, with a median of 1664 births/centre in level-II and 737 births/centre in level-I hospitals. Participating level-II hospitals provided nasal-CPAP and/or high-flow nasal cannulae (100%), mechanical ventilation (99.1%), HFOV (71.0%), inhaled nitric oxide (80.0%), therapeutic hypothermia (76.4%), and extracorporeal membrane oxygenation ECMO (8.2%). Nasal-CPAP and/or high-flow nasal cannulae and mechanical ventilation were available in 77.7 and 21.6% of the level-I centres, respectively. Multidisciplinary antenatal counselling was routinely offered to parents at 90.0% (90) of level-II hospitals, and 57.4% (85) of level-I hospitals (p < 0.001). Laryngeal masks were available in more than 90% of participating hospitals while an end-tidal CO2 detector was available in only 20%. Significant differences between level-II and level-I centres were found in the composition of resuscitation teams for high-risk deliveries, team briefings before resuscitation, providers qualified with full resuscitation skills, self-confidence, and use of sodium bicarbonate. CONCLUSIONS: This survey provides insight into neonatal resuscitation practices in a large sample of Italian hospitals. Overall, adherence to international guidelines on neonatal resuscitation was high, but differences in practice between the participating centres and the guidelines exist. Clinicians and stakeholders should consider this information when allocating resources and planning perinatal programs in Italy.

Neonatal Resuscitation Practices in Europe: A Survey of the Union of European Neonatal and Perinatal Societies.

BACKGROUND: We aimed to evaluate the policies and practices about neonatal resuscitation in a large sample of European hospitals. METHODS: 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 >2,000 births/year and between hospitals in 5 European areas (Eastern Europe, Italy, Mediterranean countries, Turkey, and Western Europe). RESULTS: 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 (p < 0.05), the presence of a resuscitation team at all deliveries (p < 0.01), umbilical cord management (p < 0.01), practices for thermal management (p < 0.05), and heart rate monitoring (p < 0.01) were significantly different between hospitals with ≤2,000 births/year and those with >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. CONCLUSIONS: 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.

Breastfeeding supportive practices in European hospitals during the COVID-19 pandemic.

INTRODUCTION: During the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic, international recommendations and guidelines regarding breastfeeding-supportive hospital practices changed frequently. For example, some recommended separation of mothers and infants; others, feeding pumped milk instead of milk fed directly from the breast. Many recommendations were inconsistent or in direct conflict with each other. Guidance from UENPS (the Union of European Neonatal and Perinatal Societies) published in April 2020 recommended rooming in and direct breastfeeding where feasible, under strict measures of infection control, for women who were COVID-19 positive or under investigation for COVID-19. KEY FINDINGS: Our study assessed data from respondents from 124 hospitals in 22 nations, with over 1000 births per year, who completed a survey on practices during the COVID-19 epidemic, as they related to the World Health Organization (WHO) Ten Steps to Successful Breastfeeding, considered to be the gold standard for breastfeeding support. The survey was conducted in the fall of 2020/winter of 2021. Overall 88% of responding hospitals had managed COVID positive mothers, and 7% had treated over 50 birthing women with confirmed COVID-19. The biggest change to hospital policy related to visitation policies, with 38% of hospitals disallowing all visitors for birthing women, and 19% shortening the postpartum stay. Eight hospitals (6%) recommended formula feeding instead of breastfeeding for women who tested positive for COVID-19 or were under investigation, whereas 73% continued to recommend direct, exclusive breastfeeding, but with some form of protection such as a mask or hand sanitizer for the mother or cleaning the breast before the feed. While 6% of hospitals discontinued rooming in, 31% strengthened their rooming in policy (keeping mothers and their babies together in the same room) to protect infants against possible exposure to the virus elsewhere in the hospital . Overall, 72% of hospitals used their country's national guidelines when making policy, 31% used WHO guidelines and 22% UENPS/SIN guidelines. Many European hospitals relied on more than one accredited source. DISCUSSION: Our most concerning finding was that 6% of hospitals recommended formula feeding for COVID positive mothers, a measure that was later shown to be potentially harmful, as protection against the virus is transmitted through human milk. It is encouraging to note that a third of hospitals strengthened rooming in measures. Especially given the emergence of the highly transmissible Delta variant, the situation around postnatal care in maternity hospitals requires ongoing monitoring and may require proactive investment to regain pre-COVID era practices.