Breech specialist midwives and clinics in the OptiBreech Trial feasibility study: An implementation process evaluation.

BACKGROUND: Attendance of skilled and experienced professionals at breech births has been associated with a reduction in adverse perinatal outcomes. We aimed to determine whether United Kingdom National Health Service (NHS) sites could reliably provide attendants with OptiBreech training and/or advanced proficiency (intervention feasibility) and consistent care (fidelity) that meets women's needs (acceptability), with low neonatal admission rates (safety) and recruitment adequate to support a clinical trial (trial feasibility). METHODS: Mixed methods implementation evaluation was used. Settings were 13 services in England and Wales. Participants were 82 women requesting support for a vaginal breech birth (VBB) at term. Outcomes were descriptively analyzed. Twenty-one women were interviewed, and transcripts were analyzed using the Theoretical Framework of Acceptability. Iterative analysis informed subsequent interviews and the ongoing process of implementation across sites. RESULTS: Although we initially suggested multidisciplinary teams, actively recruiting Trusts yielded services where VBB care was provided through a dedicated clinic, organized and delivered primarily by a lead midwife who functioned as a specialist. This model achieved 87.5% fidelity with the intervention's goal of ensuring the attendance of OptiBreech-trained professionals. Neonatal outcomes remained stable, with an admission rate of 5.5%. Women reported care from specialist midwives as highly acceptable, but the model is vulnerable without a strategic effort to develop additional proficient team members. CONCLUSIONS: Dedicated clinics coordinated by specialist midwives appear to be an acceptable and feasible implementation strategy to test the safety and effectiveness of proficient team care for VBB in a clinical trial. Back-up arrangements should be maintained while additional members of the team develop proficiency.

A Comparison of Smoflipid® and Intralipid® in the Early Management of Infants with Intestinal Failure.

PURPOSE: Cholestasis is problematic for infants with intestinal failure (IF). The soy-based lipid Intralipid® (IL) has been implicated. An alternative, Smoflipid® (SMOF), is increasingly used. However, its role in cholestasis prevention is unclear. This study compares the incidence and degree of cholestasis between infants with IF receiving SMOF or IL. METHODS: Infants with IF receiving SMOF or IL during the first 8 weeks of parenteral nutrition (PN) support between 2014 and 2017 were reviewed. Clinical characteristics, cholestasis incidence (conjugated bilirubin (Cbili) >2 mg/dL for >2 weeks), and nutritional parameters were compared using Welch's t-test. RESULTS: 91% (21/23) of IL and 76% (16/21) of SMOF babies became cholestatic (p = 0.18). There was no significant difference in median peak Cbili, but SMOF babies normalized more quickly (p = 0.04). Median z-scores for weight were similar throughout the study. SMOF patients getting full PN had a lower incidence of cholestasis compared to IL patients (78% vs. 92%, p = 0.057), but those with cholestasis had similar peak Cbili, time to resolution, and growth. CONCLUSION: Early use of Smoflipid® did not reduce the incidence of cholestasis compared to Intralipid® in infants with IF, but hyperbilirubinemia did resolve more quickly. SMOF may be most beneficial for infants tolerating no enteral nutrition. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III Retrospective Comparative Treatment Study. TYPE OF STUDY: Retrospective Review.