Accelerometer measures in extremely preterm and or extremely low birth weight infants and association with abnormal general movements assessments at 28- and 32-weeks postmenstrual age.

BACKGROUND: Assessment of general movements (GMs) in preterm infants is qualitative and potentially subjective. Accelerometers provide quantitative data that could overcome the problems of the GMs assessment. STUDY AIMS: To determine if quantitative measures (obtained from four tri-axial accelerometers) correlate with GMs assessments performed in the preterm period at 28- or 32-weeks postmenstrual age (PMA). STUDY DESIGN: Prospective observational study. Tri-axial accelerometers were applied to the dorsum of each hand and foot at 28- and 32-weeks PMA. Simultaneous video recordings of the babies' spontaneous movements were made to assess GMs. SUBJECTS: Eligible babies were born <28-weeks PMA or had a birth weight of <1000 g. Babies were recruited before they reached 33-weeks PMA. OUTCOME MEASURES: GMs assessments were made offline on the video recordings. Forty-six quantitative motor parameters were calculated during the same periods of activity and compared with GMs assessments. RESULTS: At 28-weeks PMA, 24/43 (55.8 %) babies had abnormal GMs. At 32-weeks PMA, 26/57 (45.6 %) had abnormal GMs. The inter-rater reliability of the GMs was poor. When comparing MDS measures between; infants with normal and those with abnormal GMs, at 28-weeks PMA, 7/46 parameters were significantly different, and at 32-weeks PMA, 19/46 parameters were significantly different. CONCLUSION: Isolated use of quantitative movement measures, obtained from four tri-axial accelerometers before hospital discharge, correlate with the GMs assessments at both 28-weeks and 32-weeks PMA. Accelerometers may provide a useful screening tool for abnormal GMs in preterm infants and could overcome issues with inter-rater reliability.

Effect of flow rate, humidifier dome and water volume on maximising heated, humidified gas use for neonatal resuscitation.

AIM: Dry, cold gas is used for neonatal resuscitation, contributing to low admission temperatures and exacerbation of lung injury. Recently, a method of heating and humidifying neonatal resuscitation gases has become available. We aimed to determine the optimal flow rate, humidifier chamber and water volume needed to reach 36°C, and near 100% humidity at the patient T-piece in the shortest possible time. METHOD: A T-piece resuscitator was connected via a heated patient circuit to a humidifier chamber. Trials were performed using different gas flow rates (6, 8 and 10L/min), humidification chambers (MR290, MR225) and water volumes (30g, 108g). Temperature was recorded at the humidifier chamber (T1), distal temperature probe (T2) and the T-piece (T3) over a 20min period at 30s intervals. A test lung was added during one trial. RESULTS: No significant difference existed between flow rates 8L/min and 10L/min (p=0.091, p=0.631). T3 reached 36°C and remained stable at 360s (8L/min, MR225, 30mL); near 100% RH was reached at 107s (10L/min, MR225, 30mL). T3 and humidity reached and remained stable at 480s (10L/min, MR290, 30mL). Target temperature and humidity was not reached with the test lung. CONCLUSIONS: It is possible to deliver heated, humidified gases in neonatal resuscitation in a clinically acceptable timeframe. We suggest the set-up to achieve optimal temperature and humidity for resuscitation purposes is 10L/min of gas flow, a MR290 humidification chamber, and 30mL of water.

Prophylactic systemic antibiotics to reduce morbidity and mortality in neonates with central venous catheters.

BACKGROUND: The use of central venous catheters is recognised as a risk factor for nosocomial infection. Prophylactic antibiotics may be effective in preventing catheter-related blood stream infection in newborns but may also have the undesirable effect of promoting the emergence of resistant strains of micro-organisms. OBJECTIVES: To determine the effect of prophylactic antibiotics on mortality and morbidity in neonates with central venous catheters. SEARCH STRATEGY: Searches were done of the Cochrane Neonatal Review Group Specialised Register, MEDLINE from 1950 to April 2007, CINAHL from 1982 to April 2007, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, The Cochrane Library, Issue 2 2007). Previous reviews (including cross references) were also searched. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials or quasi-randomised controlled trials of adequate quality in which either individual newborn infants or clusters of infants were randomised to receive prophylactic antibiotics (not including antifungals) versus placebo or no treatment. Infants must have had central venous catheters, been full term infants less than 28 days old or preterm infants up to 44 weeks (postmenstrual) corrected age. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Criteria and methods used to assess the methodological quality of the trials: standard methods of the Cochrane Collaboration and its Neonatal Review Group were used. The review authors extracted data independently. Attempts were made to contact study investigators for additional information as required. MAIN RESULTS: Three small studies have been included in this review. Prophylactic antibiotics in neonates with central venous catheters had no effect on overall mortality (typical RR 0.68, 95% confidence interval 0.31, 1.51). Prophylactic antibiotics in neonates with central venous catheters decreased the rate of proven bacterial sepsis (typical RR 0.38, 95% confidence interval 0.18, 0.82). Prophylactic antibiotics in neonates with central venous catheters decreased the rate of suspected or proven bacterial septicaemia (typical RR 0.40, 95% confidence interval 0.20, 0.78). No resistant organisms colonising infants were identified in any of the studies. No pooled data were available for other important outcome measures such as chronic lung disease or neurodevelopmental outcome. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Prophylactic systemic antibiotics in neonates with a central venous catheter reduces the rate of proven or suspected septicaemia. However, this may not be clinically important in the face of no significant difference in overall mortality and the lack of data on long-term neurodevelopmental outcome. Furthermore, there is a lack of data pertaining to the potentially significant disadvantages of this approach such as the selection of resistant organisms. The routine use of prophylactic antibiotics in infants with central venous catheters in neonatal units cannot currently be recommended.

Prophylactic antibiotics to reduce morbidity and mortality in neonates with umbilical artery catheters.

BACKGROUND: Umbilical artery catheters are often used in unwell neonates. Infection related to the use of these catheters may cause significant morbidity and mortality. The use of prophylactic antibiotics has been advocated for all newborns with umbilical artery catheters in order to reduce the risk of colonisation and acquired infection. Countering this is the possibility that harm, such as the emergence of antibiotic resistant organisms, may outweigh benefit. OBJECTIVES: The primary objective was to assess whether prophylactic antibiotics reduce mortality and morbidity in neonates with umbilical artery catheters. Two different policies regarding the prophylactic use of antibiotics in neonates with umbilical artery catheters were reviewed: 1) a policy of prophylactic antibiotics for the duration of catheterisation (or other fixed duration of antibiotic treatment) versus placebo or no treatment among neonates with umbilical artery catheters; 2) a policy of continuing versus discontinuing prophylactic antibiotics among neonates with umbilical artery catheters who had been started on antibiotics at the time of catheterisation but whose initial cultures to rule out sepsis are negative. SEARCH STRATEGY: MEDLINE (January 1950 to May 2007), CINAHL (1982 to May 2007), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, The Cochrane Library, Issue 2, 2007), the Cochrane Neonatal Group Specialised Register and reference lists of articles were searched. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised and some non-randomised (i.e., quasi-randomised trials) controlled trials of adequate quality in which newborn infants with umbilical artery catheters are randomised to receive prophylactic antibiotics versus placebo or no treatment. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two reviewer authors independently assessed trial quality. MAIN RESULTS: Two quasi-randomised trials have been included. However, given their poor quality, we have not pooled the results. There were no statistically significant differences in important outcomes in either study. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is insufficient evidence from randomised trials to support or refute the use of prophylactic antibiotics when umbilical artery catheters are inserted in newborn infants, and no evidence to support or refute continuing antibiotics once initial cultures rule out infection in newborn infants with umbilical artery catheters.

Prophylactic antibiotics to reduce morbidity and mortality in ventilated newborn infants.

BACKGROUND: Intubation is associated with bacterial colonisation of the respiratory tract and, therefore, may increase the risk of acquiring an infection. The infection may prolong the need for mechanical ventilation and increase the risk of chronic lung disease. The use of prophylactic antibiotics has been advocated for all mechanically ventilated newborns in order to reduce the risk of colonisation and the acquisition of infection. However, there is the possibility that the harm this may cause might outweigh the benefit. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of prophylactic antibiotics on mortality and morbidity in intubated, ventilated newborn infants who are not known to have infection. In separate comparisons, two different policies regarding the prophylactic use of antibiotics in intubated, ventilated infants were reviewed: 1) among infants who have been intubated for mechanical ventilation, a policy of prophylactic antibiotics for the duration of intubation versus placebo or no treatment 2) among intubated, ventilated infants who have been started on antibiotics at the time of intubation but whose initial cultures to rule out sepsis were negative, a policy of continuing versus discontinuing prophylactic antibiotics. SEARCH STRATEGY: MEDLINE (January 1950 to March 2007), CINAHL (1982 to March 2007), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (The Cochrane Library, Issue 1, 2007), the Cochrane Neonatal Group Specialised Register and reference lists of articles were searched. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials of sufficient quality in which mechanically ventilated newborn infants are randomised to receive prophylactic antibiotics versus placebo or no treatment. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two reviewers independently assessed trial quality. MAIN RESULTS: Two studies met the criteria for inclusion in this review. One was of insufficient quality to draw any meaningful conclusions. The other was of fair quality and found no significant differences between treatment and control groups in any of the reported outcomes, however, the rates of septicaemia were not reported. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is insufficient evidence from randomised trials to support or refute the use of prophylactic antibiotics when starting mechanical ventilation in newborn infants, or to support or refute continuing antibiotics once initial cultures have ruled out infection in mechanically ventilated newborn infants.

Albumin infusion for low serum albumin in preterm newborn infants.

BACKGROUND: Intravenous albumin infusion to treat hypoalbuminaemia is used in intensive care nurseries. Hypoalbuminaemia occurs in a number of clinical situations including prematurity, the acutely unwell infant, respiratory distress syndrome (RDS), chronic lung disease (CLD), necrotising enterocolitis (NEC), intracranial haemorrhage, hydrops fetalis and oedema. Fluid overload is a potential side effect of albumin administration. Albumin is a blood product and therefore carries the potential risk of infection and adverse reactions. Albumin is also a scarce and expensive resource. OBJECTIVES: The primary objective was to assess whether albumin infusions, in preterm neonates with low serum albumin, reduces mortality and morbidity. A secondary objective was to assess whether albumin infusion is associated with significant side effects. SEARCH STRATEGY: Searches were made of MEDLINE from 1966 to April 2004, CINAHL from 1982 to April 2004 and the current Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, The Cochrane Library issue 1, 2004). Previous reviews (including cross references) and abstracts were also searched. SELECTION CRITERIA: All randomised controlled trials in which individual patients were allocated to albumin infusion versus control were included. Cross-over studies were excluded. Quasi randomised trials were excluded. Participants were preterm infants who had hypoalbuminaemia. Types of interventions included albumin infusion versus placebo (e.g. crystalloid) or no treatment. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: The reviewers worked independently to search for trials for inclusion and to assess methodological quality. Studies were assessed using the following key criteria: blinding of randomisation, blinding of intervention, completeness of follow up and blinding of outcome measurement. MAIN RESULTS: Only two small studies were found for inclusion in this review and only one reported clinically relevant outcomes - it found no significant differences for our primary outcome measure of death (RR 1.5 [95% confidence interval 0.3 - 7.43]) or secondary outcome measures of intraventricular haemorrhage, patent ductus arteriosus, necrotising enterocolitis, bronchopulmonary dysplasia, duration of mechanical ventilation and duration of oxygen therapy. REVIEWERS' CONCLUSIONS: There is a lack of evidence from randomised trials to determine whether the routine use of albumin infusion, in preterm neonates with low serum albumin, reduces mortality or morbidity, and no evidence to assess whether albumin infusion is associated with significant side effects. There is a need for good quality, double-blind randomised controlled trials to assess the safety and efficacy of albumin infusions in preterm neonates with low serum albumin.