Intrapartum amnioinfusion reduces meconium aspiration syndrome and improves neonatal outcomes in patients with meconium-stained fluid: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to reassess the effect of prophylactic transcervical amnioinfusion for intrapartum meconium-stained amniotic fluid on meconium aspiration syndrome and other adverse neonatal and maternal outcomes. DATA SOURCES: From inception to November 2021, a systematic search of the literature was performed in PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Scopus databases and gray literature sources. STUDY ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: We identified randomized controlled trials of patients with intrapartum moderate to thick meconium-stained amniotic fluid that evaluated the effect of amnioinfusion on adverse neonatal and maternal outcomes. METHODS: Of note, 2 reviewers independently abstracted data and gauged study quality by assigning a modified Jadad score. Meconium aspiration syndrome constituted the primary outcome. The secondary outcomes were meconium below the cords, Apgar scores of <7 at 5 minutes, neonatal acidosis, cesarean delivery, cesarean delivery for fetal heart rate abnormalities, neonatal intensive care unit admission, and postpartum endometritis. This study calculated the odds ratios with 95% confidence intervals for categorical outcomes and weighted mean differences with 95% confidence intervals for continuous outcomes. RESULTS: A total of 24 randomized studies with 5994 participants met the inclusion criteria. The overall odds of meconium aspiration syndrome was reduced by 67% in the amnioinfusion group (pooled odds ratio, 0.33; 95% confidence interval, 0.21-0.51). Except for postpartum endometritis, amnioinfusion was associated with a significant reduction in all secondary outcomes. CONCLUSION: Our study found that the use of intrapartum amnioinfusion in the setting of meconium-stained amniotic fluid significantly reduces the odds of meconium aspiration syndrome and other adverse neonatal outcomes.

Assessment of Change in Practice of Routine Tracheal Suctioning Approach of Non-Vigorous Infants Born through Meconium-Stained Amniotic Fluid: A Pragmatic Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Evidence outside Randomized Trials.

AIM: The 2015 recommendation of the International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation of no routine tracheal suctioning in non-vigorous neonates born through meconium-stained amniotic fluid (MSAF) was based on very low certainty of evidence (CoE) necessitating ongoing monitoring. The aim of this systematic review was to perform a meta-analysis of observational studies comparing the effect of implementing immediate resuscitation without routine tracheal suctioning versus with routine suctioning in neonates born through MSAF. METHODS: MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL, and Web of Science were searched. Observational studies with a before-and-after design were included. Two authors extracted data independently. CoE based on GRADE recommendations was performed. RESULTS: 13 studies were included. Clinical benefit or harm could not be excluded for the composite primary outcome of mortality or requirement of extracorporeal membranous oxygenation (ECMO) (relative risk, 95% confidence interval: 0.74 [0.47-1.17]), and mortality (0.68 [0.42-1.11]). "Routine tracheal suctioning" epoch had possibly lesser risk of meconium aspiration syndrome (MAS) when compared to "no routine tracheal suctioning" epoch (0.68 [0.47-0.99]). "Routine tracheal suctioning" epoch also possibly had a lower risk of hospital admission for respiratory symptoms, requirement of non-invasive respiratory support, invasive mechanical ventilation, surfactant treatment, air leak, and low-flow oxygen therapy. Clinical benefit or harm could not be excluded for the outcome of mortality or ECMO among those diagnosed with MAS (1.09 [0.86-1.39]), but "routine tracheal suctioning" was possibly associated with lower risk of respiratory morbidities among those diagnosed with MAS. The CoE was very low for most of the outcomes evaluated. CONCLUSIONS: Due to the very low CoE for the outcomes evaluated, no definitive conclusions can be drawn warranting the need for additional studies.

Effect of Endotracheal Suctioning on Infants Born through Meconium-Stained Amniotic Fluid: A Meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: Meconium is a common finding in amniotic fluid and placental specimens, particularly in term and post-term pregnancies. The objective of this paper was to perform a meta-analysis to examine the impact of endotracheal suctioning on the occurrence of meconium aspiration syndrome (MAS), mortality, and complications. STUDY DESIGN: PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane library were systematically searched for comparative studies. Odds ratios (ORs), weighted mean differences (WMDs), and corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were used to compare the outcomes. RESULTS: Twelve studies were included in the meta-analysis. There were no significant impacts of endotracheal suctioning on the occurrence of MAS (OR = 3.05, 95% CI: 0.48-19.56), mortality (OR = 1.25, 95% CI: 0.35-4.44), the need for mechanical ventilation (OR = 4.20, 95% CI: 0.32-54.72), the occurrence of pneumothorax (OR = 0.99, 95% CI: 0.34-2.85), persistent pulmonary hypertension of the newborn (PPHN), (OR = 1.31, 95% CI: 0.58-2.98), hypoxic-ischemic encephalopathy (HIE) (OR = 0.82, 95% CI: 0.52-1.30), and length of stay (WMD = -0.11, 95% CI: -0.99-0.77). CONCLUSION: Routine endotracheal suctioning at birth is not useful in preventing MAS, mortality, mechanical ventilation, PPHN, HIE, and prolonged length of stay in neonates born through MSAF. KEY POINTS: · Routine suctioning is not recommended for newborns.. · Endotracheal aspiration is not beneficial for MAS.. · Future research may focus on selected neonates..

Appropriate Management of the Nonvigorous Meconium-Stained Newborn Meconium.

Before 2015, major changes in Neonatal Resuscitation Program (NRP) recommendations not supporting previously endorsed antepartum, intrapartum and postpartum interventions to prevent meconium aspiration syndrome were based on adequately powered multicenter randomized controlled trials. The 2015 and 2020 American Heart Association guidelines and 7th and 8th edition of NRP suggest not performing routine intubation and tracheal suctioning of nonvigorous meconium-stained newborns. However, this was given as a weak recommendation with low-certainty evidence. The purpose of this review is to summarize the evidence and explore the question of appropriate delivery room management for nonvigorous meconium-stained newborns.

Síndrome de aspiración meconial: revisión de la fisiopatología y estrategias de manejo / Meconium aspiration syndrome: review of the pathophysiology and management strategies

El síndrome de aspiración meconial, es una condición clínica caracterizada por insuficiencia respiratoria que ocurre en neonatos nacidos a través de líquido amniótico teñido de meconio, y que puede presentarse como una enfermedad grave con riesgo vital. Su incidencia ha disminuido gracias a mejores prácticas obstétricas y atención perinatal y se ha observado una mejoría en la sobrevida, gracias a mejores prácticas en la UCI neonatal. Sin embargo, el abordaje más adecuado sigue siendo un tema de debate, dado que hasta el momento se basa sólo en medidas de soporte, sin que existan medidas que actúen sobre los mecanismos de daño. Por otro lado, la morbilidad a largo plazo entre los sobrevivientes sigue siendo una preocupación importante. Esta revisión ofrece una visión general actualizada de la epidemiología, la fisiopatología, el diagnóstico, el manejo terapéutico, la prevención y el pronóstico de los pacientes que presentan este cuadro.

Meconium aspiration syndrome is a clinical condition characterized by respiratory failure that occurs in neonates born through meconium-stained amniotic fluid and can present as a serious life-threatening disease. Its incidence has decreased thanks to better obstetric practices and perinatal care, and an improvement in survival has been observed, thanks to better practices in the neonatal ICU. However, the most appropriate approach is still a matter of debate, given that so far it is based only on support measures, without any measures that act on the damage mechanisms. On the other hand, long-term morbidity among survivors remains a major concern. This review offers an updated overview of the epidemiology, pathophysiology, diagnosis, therapeutic management, prevention, and prognosis of patients with this condition.

Tracheal suction at birth in non-vigorous neonates born through meconium-stained amniotic fluid.

BACKGROUND: Neonates born through meconium-stained amniotic fluid (MSAF) are at risk of developing meconium aspiration syndrome (MAS). Neonates who are non-vigorous due to intrapartum asphyxia are at higher risk of developing MAS. Clearance of meconium from the airways below the vocal cords by tracheal suction before initiating other steps of resuscitation may reduce the risk of development of MAS. However, conducting tracheal suction may not only be ineffective, it may also delay effective resuscitation, thus prolonging and worsening the hypoxic-ischaemic insult.  OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the efficacy of tracheal suctioning at birth in preventing meconium aspiration syndrome and other complications among non-vigorous neonates born through meconium-stained amniotic fluid. SEARCH METHODS: We used the standard search strategy of Cochrane Neonatal to search Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL 2020, Issue 11) in the Cochrane Library; Ovid MEDLINE(R) and Epub Ahead of Print, In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations, Daily and Versions(R) (1946 to 25 November 2020) for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-randomised trials. We also searched clinical trials databases and the reference lists of retrieved articles for RCTs and quasi-randomised trials (up to November 2020). SELECTION CRITERIA: We included studies enrolling non-vigorous neonates born through MSAF, if the intervention being tested included tracheal suction at the time of birth with an intent to clear the trachea of meconium before regular breathing efforts began. Tracheal suction could be performed with an endotracheal tube or a wide-gauge suction catheter. Neonates in the control group should have been resuscitated at birth with no effort made to clear the trachea of meconium. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted data, consulting with a third review author about any disagreements. We used standard Cochrane methodological procedures, including assessment of risk of bias for all studies. Our primary outcomes were: MAS; all-cause neonatal mortality; and incidence of hypoxic-ischaemic encephalopathy (HIE). Secondary outcomes included: need for mechanical ventilation; incidence of pulmonary air leaks; culture-positive sepsis; and persistent pulmonary hypertension. We used the GRADE approach to assess the certainty of evidence. MAIN RESULTS: We included four studies (enrolling 581 neonates) in the review. All four studies were conducted in tertiary care hospitals in India. Three of the four studies included neonates born at and beyond term gestation, whereas one included neonates born at and beyond 34 weeks of gestation. Due to the nature of the intervention, it was not possible to blind the healthcare personnel conducting the intervention. Tracheal suction compared to no suction in non-vigorous neonates born through MSAF In non-vigorous infants, no differences were noted in the risks of MAS (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.25; RD 0.00, 95% CI -0.07 to 0.08; 4 studies, 581 neonates) or all-cause neonatal mortality (RR 1.24, 95% CI 0.76 to 2.02; RD 0.02, 95% CI -0.03 to 0.07; 4 studies, 575 neonates) with or without tracheal suctioning. No differences were reported in the risk of any severity HIE (RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.63; 1 study, 175 neonates) or moderate to severe HIE (RR 0.68, 95% CI 0.43 to 1.09; 1 study, 152 neonates) among non-vigorous neonates born through MSAF. We are also uncertain as to the effect of tracheal suction on other outcomes such as incidence of mechanical ventilation (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.44; RD 0.00, 95% CI -0.06 to 0.06; 4 studies, 581 neonates), pulmonary air leaks (RR 1.22, 95% CI 0.38 to 3.93; RD 0.00, 95% CI -0.02 to 0.03; 3 studies, 449 neonates), persistent pulmonary hypertension (RR 1.29, 95% CI 0.60 to 2.77; RD 0.02, 95% CI -0.03 to 0.06; 3 studies, 406 neonates) and culture-positive sepsis (RR 1.32, 95% CI 0.48 to 3.57; RD 0.01, 95% CI -0.03 to 0.05; 3 studies, 406 neonates). All reported outcomes were judged as providing very low certainty evidence. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We are uncertain about the effect of tracheal suction on the incidence of MAS and its complications among non-vigorous neonates born through MSAF. One study awaits classification and could not be included in the review. More research from well-conducted large trials is needed to conclusively answer the review question.

Gastric Lavage for Prevention of Feeding Intolerance in Neonates Delivered Through Meconium-Stained Amniotic Fluid: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

BACKGROUND: The role of gastric lavage in neonates delivered through meconium-stained amniotic fluid remains unclear. OBJECTIVE: This study evaluated the effects of gastric lavage, compared to no gastric lavage, on the incidences of feeding intolerance, respiratory distress, meconium aspiration synd-rome, time to establish breastfeeding, hospitalization and pro-cedure-related complications in late-preterm and term neonates delivered through meconium-stained amniotic fluid. DESIGN: Systematic review and meta-analysis. DATA SOURCES AND SELECTION CRITERIA: MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, and other databases were searched for randomized controlled trials and quasi-randomized controlled trials using search terms: neonate OR newborn infant, meconium OR meconium-stained amniotic fluid, and lavage OR gastric lavage from inception to May 2020. Data were pooled in RevMan and analyzed in GRADE. RESULTS: Pooled effects (9 randomized controlled trials, number=3668), showed a significant reduction in the incidence of feeding intolerance (relative risk 0.70; 95% confidence interval 0.58,0.85, I2=0) after gastric lavage. No difference was observed for the incidence of meconium aspiration syndrome (4 studies) or procedure-related complications (7 studies). Only one study, reporting the proportion of neonates with low oxygenation (SpO2<85%), did not find any significant difference. No study evaluated the effects of gastric lavage on respiratory distress, breastfeeding, and hospitalization. CONCLUSIONS: Low-quality evidence supported the role of gastric lavage for the prevention of feeding intolerance in late-preterm and term neonates born through meconium-stained amniotic fluid. Applicability of results was limited by the high risk of bias. Well-conducted randomized controlled trials with important patient outcomes are needed before recommending the practice of gastric lavage.

Outcomes of endotracheal suctioning in non-vigorous neonates born through meconium-stained amniotic fluid: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: We aimed to systematically review and analyse the outcomes of non-endotracheal suctioning (non-ETS) versus ETS in non-vigorous meconium-stained neonates. DESIGN: We conducted a systematic review of non-ETS and ETS in non-vigorous infants born through meconium-stained amniotic fluid (MSAF). We searched PubMed/Medline, Scopus, Clinical Trials.gov, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health, and Cochrane Library databases from inception to November 2019, using keywords and related terms. Only non-vigorous infants born through MSAF included in randomised controlled trials, were included. We calculated overall relative risks (RRs) and mean differences with 95% CIs using a random-effects model, to determine the impact of ETS in non-vigorous infants born through MSAF. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was the incidence of meconium aspiration syndrome (MAS). Secondary outcomes were respiratory outcome measures (pneumothorax, persistent pulmonary hypertension of the newborn, secondary pneumonia, need for respiratory support, duration of mechanical ventilation), initial resuscitation and others including shock, perinatal asphyxia, convulsions, neonatal mortality, blood culture-positive sepsis and duration of hospital stay. RESULTS: A total of 2085 articles were identified in the initial database search. Four studies, including 581 non-vigorous meconium-stained infants, fulfilled the inclusion criteria, comprising 292 infants in the non-ETS group and 289 in the ETS group. No statistically significant difference was found for MAS (RR 0.98; 95% CI 0.71 to 1.35). CONCLUSIONS: Initiating ETS soon after birth in non-vigorous meconium-stained infants may not alter their neonatal outcomes.

Resuscitation of non-vigorous neonates born through meconium-stained amniotic fluid: post policy change impact analysis.

BACKGROUND: We investigated the impact of policy change in delivery room resuscitation from routine endotracheal (ET) suctioning of non-vigorous neonates born through meconium-stained amniotic fluid (MSAF) to immediate non-invasive respiratory support. DESIGN: Single-centre cohort study. Prospective group (October 2016-September 2017)-non-vigorous neonates born through MSAF managed according to the current (2015) guidance of commencing respiratory support without prior suctioning. Retrospective group (August 2015-July 2016)-non-vigorous neonates born through MSAF who underwent routine ET suctioning. RESULTS: 1138 neonates born through MSAF were analysed. No differences in the incidence of meconium aspiration syndrome (MAS), requirement of mechanical ventilation, inhaled nitric oxide or surfactant therapy were found between groups. Less neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) admissions were necessary in the prospective cohort compared with the retrospective group (19.1% vs 55.6%, respectively; p<0.05). CONCLUSION: The policy change towards not routinely suctioning non-vigorous neonates born through MSAF at birth was not associated with an increase in the local incidence of MAS and was associated with fewer NICU admissions.

Endotracheal suctioning for prevention of meconium aspiration syndrome: a randomized controlled trial.

The current version of Neonatal Resuscitation Program no longer favors routine endotracheal suctioning (ETS) in non-vigorous newborns with meconium-stained amniotic fluid (MSAF) due to possibility of procedure-related harms and questionable benefits. However, it calls for additional research on this procedure to provide a definitive answer. The present study was conducted to evaluate the role of ETS in non-vigorous neonates of ≥ 34 weeks' gestation born through MSAF on the incidence of meconium aspiration syndrome (MAS). In this open-label randomized controlled trial, 132 non-vigorous neonates with MSAF were randomized to receive ETS (n = 66) or no-ETS (n = 66) during delivery room resuscitation (DRR). Primary outcome variable was incidence of MAS. Secondary outcome variables were requirement of DRR, need of respiratory support, development of complications, duration of hospitalization, and mortality. Both the groups were comparable with respect to maternal and neonatal characteristics. Incidence of MAS was 21 (31.8%) and 15 (22.7%) cases in ETS and no-ETS groups, respectively (relative risk (RR), 1.400, 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.793-2.470). The two groups did not differ with regard to DRR, need for respiratory support, and development of complications. Nine (13.6%) neonates in ETS group, and 5 (7.5%) in no-ETS group died (p > 0.05). Median (interquartile range) duration of hospital stay was 54 (31-141) h and 44 (26-102) h in ETS and no-ETS groups, respectively (p > 0.05).Conclusions: Routine ETS at birth is not useful in preventing MAS in non-vigorous neonates of ≥ 34 weeks' gestation born through MSAF.Trial registration: Clinical Trials Registry of India (CTRI/2015/04/008819).What is Known:• Routine endotracheal suctioning is of questionable benefit in non-vigorous newborns with meconium stained amniotic fluid and may have a possibility of procedure-related harms.What is New:• Routine endotracheal suctioning at birth is not useful in preventing meconium aspiration syndrome in non-vigorous newborns of ≥ 34 weeks' gestation born through meconium stained amniotic fluid.

Gastric lavage in babies born through meconium stained amniotic fluid in prevention of early feed intolerance: A randomized controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy of gastric lavage (GL) in preventing feed intolerance in babies born through Meconium stained amniotic fluid (MSAF). STUDY DESIGN: In this randomized trial conducted at a tertiary care hospital, neonates born of MSAF after 34 weeks period of gestation requiring routine care were randomly allocated to GL with 10 ml/kg of normal saline. The control group did not receive GL. The subjects were monitored for first 24 hours in predefined time epochs. The primary outcome was incidence of feed intolerance which was defined as vomiting or abdominal distension more than 2 cm from baseline measure. Babies were also monitored for potential adverse events due to GL and total duration of hospital stay. RESULTS: Baseline parameters were comparable. The incidence of feed intolerance was not significant in the GL group [4.6% vs 9.2%; RR 0.92 (0.29-3)]. There were no adverse events secondary to GL. The duration of hospital stay was comparable between groups. CONCLUSION: GL in neonates born of MSAF does not reduce feed intolerance.

Evolution of Delivery Room Management for Meconium-Stained Infants: Recent Updates.

BACKGROUND: The approach to intrapartum and postnatal management of an infant born through meconium-stained amniotic fluid (MSAF) in the delivery room (DR) has changed several times over the last few decades, leading to confusion and anxiety among health care providers (nurses, nurse practitioners, respiratory therapists, midwives, and physicians). This article provides state-of-the-art insight into the evidence or lack thereof for the changes in guidelines. PURPOSE: To discuss the evidence for evolution of DR management of vigorous and nonvigorous infants born through any type of MSAF. METHODS: Review of guidelines from the Neonatal Resuscitation Program of the American Academy of Pediatrics and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, the International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation, Consensus on Science and Treatment Recommendations, and textbooks of neonatal resuscitation and research using MEDLINE via PubMed. FINDINGS: In pregnancies complicated by MSAF, intrapartum suctioning of the oro- and nasopharynx and postnatal intubation with tracheal suctioning of infants have been traditionally used to clear the airway and decrease meconium aspiration syndrome. The recommendations for these perinatal practices have changed several times due to some evidence that the procedures are not beneficial and may even be harmful. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Intrapartum suctioning and postnatal tracheal suctioning of infants (vigorous or nonvigorous) born through MSAF are not recommended. This is a "high-risk" delivery requiring 2 team members to be present at birth-one with full resuscitation skills including tracheal intubation. IMPLICATIONS FOR RESEARCH: Need to evaluate effects of discontinuing the practice of tracheal suctioning in nonvigorous infants on the incidence of meconium aspiration syndrome and neonatal mortality.

Approach to Infants Born Through Meconium Stained Amniotic Fluid: Evolution Based on Evidence?

Meconium-stained amniotic fluid (MSAF) during delivery is a marker of fetal stress. Neonates born through MSAF often need resuscitation and are at risk of meconium aspiration syndrome (MAS), air leaks, hypoxic-ischemic encephalopathy, extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO), and death. The neonatal resuscitation approach to MSAF has evolved over the last three decades. Previously, nonvigorous neonates soon after delivery were suctioned under the vocal cords with direct visualization technique using a meconium aspirator. The recent neonatal resuscitation program (NRP) recommends against suctioning but favors resuscitation with positive pressure ventilation of nonvigorous neonates with MSAF. This recommendation is aimed to prevent delay in resuscitation and minimize hypoxia-ischemia often associated with MSAF. In this review, we discuss the pathophysiology, evolution and the evidence, randomized control trials, observational studies, and translational research to support these recommendations. The frequency of ECMO use for neonatal respiratory indication of MAS has declined over the years probably secondary to improvements in neonatal intensive care and reduction of postmaturity. Changes in resuscitation practices may have contributed to reduced incidence and severity of MAS. Larger randomized controlled studies are needed among nonvigorous infants with MSAF. However, ethical dilemmas and loss of equipoise pose a challenge to conduct such studies.

Meconium "aspiration" (or respiratory distress associated with meconium-stained amniotic fluid?).

The designation meconium aspiration syndrome (MAS) reflects a spectrum of disorders in infants born with meconium-stained amniotic fluid, ranging from mild tachypnea to severe respiratory distress and significant mortality. The frequency of MAS is highest among infants with post-term gestation, thick meconium, and birth asphyxia. Pulmonary hypertension is an important component in severe cases. Prenatal hypopharyngeal suctioning and postnatal endotracheal intubation and suctioning of vigorous infants are not effective. Intubation and suctioning of non-breathing infants is controversial and needs more investigation. Oxygen, mechanical ventilation, and inhaled nitric oxide are the mainstays of treatment. Surfactant is often used in infants with severe parenchymal involvement. High-frequency ventilation and extracorporeal membrane oxygenation are usually considered rescue therapies.

Committee Opinion No.689 Summary: Delivery of a Newborn With Meconium-Stained Amniotic Fluid.

In 2006, the American Academy of Pediatrics and the American Heart Association published the 2005 guidelines on neonatal resuscitation. Before the 2005 guidelines, management of a newborn with meconium-stained amniotic fluid included suctioning of the oropharynx and nasopharynx on the perineum after the delivery of the head but before the delivery of the shoulders. The 2005 guidelines did not support this practice because routine intrapartum suctioning does not prevent or alter the course of meconium aspiration syndrome in vigorous newborns. However, the 2005 guidelines did support intubation of the trachea and suctioning of meconium or other aspirated material from beneath the glottis in nonvigorous newborns. In 2015, the guidelines were updated. Routine intubation and tracheal suctioning are no longer required. If the infant is vigorous with good respiratory effort and muscle tone, the infant may stay with the mother to receive the initial steps of newborn care. If the infant born through meconium-stained amniotic fluid presents with poor muscle tone and inadequate breathing efforts, the initial steps of resuscitation should be completed under the radiant warmer. Appropriate intervention to support ventilation and oxygenation should be initiated as indicated for each infant. Infants with meconium-stained amniotic fluid should no longer routinely receive intrapartum suctioning, whether they are vigorous or not. In addition, meconium-stained amniotic fluid is a condition that requires the notification and availability of an appropriately credentialed team with full resuscitation skills, including endotracheal intubation. Resuscitation should follow the same principles for infants with meconium-stained fluid as for those with clear fluid.

Committee Opinion No 689: Delivery of a Newborn With Meconium-Stained Amniotic Fluid.

In 2006, the American Academy of Pediatrics and the American Heart Association published the 2005 guidelines on neonatal resuscitation. Before the 2005 guidelines, management of a newborn with meconium-stained amniotic fluid included suctioning of the oropharynx and nasopharynx on the perineum after the delivery of the head but before the delivery of the shoulders. The 2005 guidelines did not support this practice because routine intrapartum suctioning does not prevent or alter the course of meconium aspiration syndrome in vigorous newborns. However, the 2005 guidelines did support intubation of the trachea and suctioning of meconium or other aspirated material from beneath the glottis in nonvigorous newborns. In 2015, the guidelines were updated. Routine intubation and tracheal suctioning are no longer required. If the infant is vigorous with good respiratory effort and muscle tone, the infant may stay with the mother to receive the initial steps of newborn care. If the infant born through meconium-stained amniotic fluid presents with poor muscle tone and inadequate breathing efforts, the initial steps of resuscitation should be completed under the radiant warmer. Appropriate intervention to support ventilation and oxygenation should be initiated as indicated for each infant. Infants with meconium-stained amniotic fluid should no longer routinely receive intrapartum suctioning, whether they are vigorous or not. In addition, meconium-stained amniotic fluid is a condition that requires the notification and availability of an appropriately credentialed team with full resuscitation skills, including endotracheal intubation. Resuscitation should follow the same principles for infants with meconium-stained fluid as for those with clear fluid.

The ongoing quandary of defining the standard of care for neonates.

UNLABELLED: Despite extensive use of the term 'standard of care' (SOC), there is no such medical definition. How are neonatal therapies accepted as SOC with huge centre-to-centre variation? What defines SOC? We will consider paths to acceptance of multiple therapies (antenatal corticosteroids, preventing GBS, others). We conclude single-centre trials drive care, but are not consistently predictive for multicentre trials. Innovation/quality improvement initiatives also alter care, despite strong evidence practice changes take time. Furthermore, there are powerful medico-legal implications if a therapy is designated SOC. CONCLUSION: Defining SOC is a quandary with more legal implications than medical, but what's most critical is keeping current in a rapidly changing field.