Resuscitators' opinions on using a respiratory function monitor during neonatal resuscitation.

AIM: The aim of this study was to assess the resuscitators' opinions of the usefulness and clinical value of using a respiratory function monitor (RFM) when resuscitating extremely preterm infants with positive pressure ventilation. METHODS: The link to an online survey was sent to 106 resuscitators from six countries who were involved in a multicentre trial that compared the percentage of inflations within a predefined target range with and without the RFM. The resuscitators were asked to assess the usefulness and clinical value of the RFM. The survey was online for 4 months after the trial ended in May 2019. RESULTS: The survey was completed by 74 (70%) resuscitators of which 99% considered the RFM to be helpful during neonatal resuscitation and 92% indicated that it influenced their decision-making. The majority (76%) indicated that using the RFM improved their practice and made resuscitation more effective, even when the RFM was not available. Inadequate training was the key issue that limited the effectiveness of the RFM: 45% felt insufficiently trained, and 78% felt more training in using and interpreting the RFM would have been beneficial. CONCLUSION: Resuscitators considered the RFM to be helpful to guide neonatal resuscitation, but sufficient training was required to achieve the maximum benefit.

A multi-centre randomised controlled trial of respiratory function monitoring during stabilisation of very preterm infants at birth.

AIM: To determine whether the use of a respiratory function monitor (RFM) during PPV of extremely preterm infants at birth, compared with no RFM, leads to an increase in percentage of inflations with an expiratory tidal volume (Vte) within a predefined target range. METHODS: Unmasked, randomised clinical trial conducted October 2013 - May 2019 in 7 neonatal intensive care units in 6 countries. Very preterm infants (24-27 weeks of gestation) receiving PPV at birth were randomised to have a RFM screen visible or not. The primary outcome was the median proportion of inflations during manual PPV (face mask or intubated) within the target range (Vte 4-8 mL/kg). There were 42 other prespecified monitor measurements and clinical outcomes. RESULTS: Among 288 infants randomised (median (IQR) gestational age 26+2 (25+3-27+1) weeks), a total number of 51,352 inflations were analysed. The median (IQR) percentage of inflations within the target range in the RFM visible group was 30.0 (18.0-42.2)% vs 30.2 (14.8-43.1)% in the RFM non-visible group (p = 0.721). There were no differences in other respiratory function measurements, oxygen saturation, heart rate or FiO2. There were no differences in clinical outcomes, except for the incidence of intraventricular haemorrhage (all grades) and/or cystic periventricular leukomalacia (visible RFM: 26.7% vs non-visible RFM: 39.0%; RR 0.71 (0.68-0.97); p = 0.028). CONCLUSION: In very preterm infants receiving PPV at birth, the use of a RFM, compared to no RFM as guidance for tidal volume delivery, did not increase the percentage of inflations in a predefined target range. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Dutch Trial Register NTR4104, clinicaltrials.gov NCT03256578.

Challenges in developing a consensus definition of neonatal sepsis.

Sepsis remains a leading cause of morbidity and mortality in the neonatal population, and at present, there is no unified definition of neonatal sepsis. Existing consensus sepsis definitions within paediatrics are not suited for use in the NICU and do not address sepsis in the premature population. Many neonatal research and surveillance networks have criteria for the definition of sepsis within their publications though these vary greatly and there is typically a heavy emphasis on microbiological culture. The concept of organ dysfunction as a diagnostic criterion for sepsis is rarely considered in neonatal literature, and it remains unclear how to most accurately screen neonates for organ dysfunction. Accurately defining and screening for sepsis is important for clinical management, health service design and future research. The progress made by the Sepsis-3 group provides a roadmap of how definitions and screening criteria may be developed. Similar initiatives in neonatology are likely to be more challenging and would need to account for the unique presentation of sepsis in term and premature neonates. The outputs of similar consensus work within neonatology should be twofold: a validated definition of neonatal sepsis and screening criteria to identify at-risk patients earlier in their clinical course. IMPACT: There is currently no consensus definition of neonatal sepsis and the definitions that are currently in use are varied.A consensus definition of neonatal sepsis would benefit clinicians, patients and researchers.Recent progress in adults with publication of Sepsis-3 provides guidance on how a consensus definition and screening criteria for sepsis could be produced in neonatology.We discuss common themes and potential shortcomings in sepsis definitions within neonatology.We highlight the need for a consensus definition of neonatal sepsis and the challenges that this task poses.