99nicu... Your Forum in Neonatology!

Welcome to 99nicu, the web community for staff in neonatal medicine!

Become a member for full access to all features: get and give advice in the forums, start your own blog and enjoy benefits! Registration is free :) - click here to register!

Greetings from the 99nicu HQs

Blogs

Our community blogs

  1.  

    maxresdefault.jpg?w=648

     

    I think my first training in resuscitation began with the principles outlined in the NRP 3rd edition program.  As we have moved through subsequent editions with the current edition being number 7, I can’t help but think about how many changes have occurred over that time.  One such change has been the approach to using medications as part of a resuscitation.  Gone are such things as calcium gluconate, naloxone and sodium bicarbonate but something that has stood the test of time is epinephrine.  The dosing and recommendations for administering epinephrine have changed over time as well with the dose of endotracheal medication increasing from 0.01 to 0.03 and now to 0.05 – 0.1 mg/kg.  While this dosing has increased, that of IV administration has remained the same at 0.01 to 0.03 mg/kg.  The change in dosing for the ETT route was due to an increasing awareness that this route just isn’t as effective as IV.  Having said that with only 0.1% of resuscitations requiring such support the experience with either route is fairly limited.

    What is the concern?

    Giving a medication directly via the IV route ensures the dose reaches the heart in the amount desired.  In the case of ETT administration there are a few potential issues along the way.  The first is that one needs to push the dose down the ETT and this presumes the ETT is actually in the trachea (could have become dislodged).  Secondly, if the medication is sent to the lung what effect does the liquid component in the airways have in terms of dilution and distribution of the medication?  Lastly, even if you get the epinephrine to the lung it must be picked up at the capillary level and then returned to the left side of the heart.  In the absence of significant forward pulmonary blood flow this is not assured.

    What is the evidence?

    In terms of human clinical research it remains fairly limited.  Barber published a retrospective review of 47 newborns who received epinephrine via the endotracheal route.  The study Use and efficacy of endotracheal versus intravenous epinephrine during neonatal cardiopulmonary resuscitation in the delivery room found that spontaneous circulation was restored in 32% of this cohort.  Following the first dose, a subsequent dose of intravenous epinephrine restored circulation in 77%.  This study provided the first suggestion that the IV route may be better than endotracheal.  Keep in mind though that this study was retrospective and as the authors conclude in the end, prospective studies are needed to confirm these findings.  The question really is what is the likelihood of restoring circulation if the first dose is given IV?

    Eleven years later we have a second study that attempts to answer this question although once again it is retrospective. Efficacy of Intravenous and Endotracheal Epinephrine during NeonatalCardiopulmonary Resuscitation in the Delivery Room by Halling et al. This study really was designed to answer two questions.  The study group looked at the period from July 2006 to July 2014.  During this period the dose of IV epinephrine remained unchanged as per NRP recommendations but the dose of endotracheal epinephrine increased from 0.01 to 0.03 and then to 0.05 mg/kg endotracheally.  The increase was in response to both NRP and site observations that the lower doses were not achieving the effect they were hoping for.

    The Results

      ETT epinephrine IV Epinephrine
    Number 30 20
    Return of circulation 23 15
    1 dose 6 4
    2 dose 5 8
    3 doses 9 0
    4 doses 3 3

    In the ETT group all doses except for 3 after the first dose were given as IV.  There was no difference in the response rate over time suggesting that higher doses do not truly increase the chance of a better response.  The authors noted that the effectiveness of the two arms were not that different despite a significantly higher dose of epinephrine being administered to the group receiving ETT epinephrine first which is not surprising given the higher recommended dosages.

    What I find interesting though is that giving the first dose of epinephrine was given IV in 20 of the paitents, if it is indeed the better route one might expect a better response than in the ETT group.  The response from one dose of ETT epi was 20% while that from the IV first group was in fact also only 20%!  We do indeed need to be careful here with small numbers but the results at least to me do not suggest strongly that giving IV epi first ensures success. What the study suggests to me is that two doses of epinephrine may be needed to restore circulation.  If you choose to start with IV it certainly does not seem unwise but if you have any delays I don’t see any reason to avoid ETT epinephrine as your first line.

    The reality is that for many individuals a UVC is a procedure that while they may have learned in an NRP class they may have never actually placed one.  Having an ETT in place though seems like a good place to start.  I doubt we will ever see a randomized trial of ETT vs IV epinephrine in Neonatology at this point given the stance by the NRP so these sorts of studies I suspect will be the best we get.

    For now, based on what is out there I suggest use the route that you can get first but expect to need additional doses at least one more time to achieve success.  Lastly remember that even if you do everything correct there will be some that cannot be brought back.  Rest assured though that if the first dose was given via ETT you have still done your best if that was the route you had.

  2. The PREMILOC trial was a multi-center RCT of hydrocortisone, 0.5mg/kg twice per
    day for 7 days followed by 0.5 mg/kg per day for 3 days, given starting within 24 hours of age to infants of 24 to less than 28 weeks gestation.

    Neurological and developmental follow-up has just been published (Baud O, et al. Association between early low-dose hydrocortisone therapy in extremely preterm neonates and neurodevelopmental outcomes at 2 years of age. JAMA. 2017;317(13):1329-37.)
    There were 523 infants initially enrolled and 406 who survived to 2 years of age, 93% of those were seen at between 21 and 23 months corrected age, for examination and evaluation with standardized instruments.

    You probably remember that the primary outcome of the trial was survival without BPD, which was somewhat reduced by the intervention (51% compared to 60% in controls). This was as a result of fewer deaths (18% compared to 23%) and less BPD (22% compared to 26%) neither of which component of the primary outcome was individually significant. In this follow-up study the authors not that after the 36 week end of the main data collection there were a further 8 deaths, 7 in the control group and 1 in the hydrocortisone group, 5 of which were from severe BPD (4 vs 1). (These deaths were also reported as the deaths before discharge in the initial publication, but I don't think the causes were noted).

    All of the babies followed had a standardized neurologic evaluation, but unfortunately only 80% of them had the revised Brunet-Lézine evaluation of developmental progress, which gives a developmental quotient, standardized, as usual, with a population mean of 100 and SD of 15.

    Basically there were no differences between the groups on neurological signs of impairment, or developmental scores. For example there were 6% of the hydrocortisone and 5% of the control group who developed cerebral palsy. Mean Global Development score was 91.7 in the hydrocortisone group and 91.4 in the control group.

    I guess one could say that if there is less BPD and no increase in neuro or developmental adverse effects, we should think of using this as routine therapy?

    But the group also report clinically important respiratory outcomes up to 2 years of age :

    image1.png

    You can see from their table 2 that there is no sign of better respiratory health (or incidentally any effect on growth outcomes) among the survivors, with some of the minor differences being in one direction, some in the other direction.

    Which calls into question again the use of oxygen at 36 weeks, as an outcome for RCTs even when combined with an oxygen reduction test, as in this trial. If kids are more likely to be out of oxygen at 36 weeks, but no more likely to go home on oxygen (14 babies in each group) and not more likely to have respiratory problems in follow-up, then the significance of getting extubated earlier, or needing oxygen for fewer days is questionable, at least the significance to families.

    I think those outcomes are indeed benefits to families, its much better to see your baby with CPAP or non-invasive ventilation than intubated, but if there is on clear long-term benefit then we should be pretty certain that there is no harm before instituting this as routine therapy.

    Currently, is there any other evidence of harm from this approach?

    In the initial data from this trial, late onset sepsis was higher (31% vs 25% had at least one episode), NEC was higher (7% vs 5%) GI perforation was higher (5% vs 4%) use of insulin for hyperglycemia was higher (38% vs 34%) and severe RoP was higher (2% vs 1%) all of which could be due to chance effects, but the study was not powered to detect such small, but potentially important, differences; indeed in one subgroup, the most immature infants, the impact of steroids on late onset sepsis was, indeed quite different, 40% vs 23%, and their analysis showed this was unlikely due to chance. Its interesting in the on-line supplementary appendix that the major difference in late onset sepsis arose after the end of the treatment period.

    It is also interesting that this dose of hydrocortisone had no evident impact on blood pressures, nor on the use of dopamine.

    I think that all of these worrying differences between the groups, favoring control, with no evidence of long-term benefit, and the only evidence of short-term benefit being shorter intubation and shorter duration of oxygen therapy, that we should not introduce this regime as a routine in our patients.

    There is a minor difference in survival with the hydrocortisone treatment though, with 19% mortality before discharge (and before 2 years) compared to 25% in the control group. I calculate the 95% confidence intervals of this 6% difference as being between 13% fewer deaths and 1% more deaths, using early low dose hydrocortisone in similar babies.

    Unfortunately, I think I have to say that this therefore warrants further study. A larger trial with enough power to detect a 5% difference in mortality, perhaps in a region where the survival at 24 and 25 weeks is above 65% (as in this French multi-center trial; compared to for example 78% in the CNN database from 2015) should be performed.

    I think a future trial should not use this as a definition of bronchopulmonary dysplasia, other definitions have been suggested, such as this recent publication from the CNN (Isayama T, et al. Revisiting the Definition of Bronchopulmonary Dysplasia: Effect of Changing Panoply of Respiratory Support for Preterm Neonates. JAMA Pediatr. 2017;171(3):271-9.) In this study the best discrimination between those who had serious respiratory morbidity after discharge (when seen at 18 month follow up) from data collected during the neonatal period, was the need for oxygen or respiratory support (anything that gave positive pressure including high-flow cannulae at more than 1.5 litres per minute) at 40 weeks post-menstrual age.

    Serious respiratory morbidity was defined as either (1) 3 or more rehospitalizations after NICU discharge owing to respiratory problems (infectious or noninfectious); (2) having a tracheostomy; (3) using respiratory monitoring or support devices at home such as an apnea monitor or pulse oximeter; and (4) being on home oxygen or continuous positive airway pressure at the time of assessment between 18 and 21 months corrected age.

    Just as important, a recognition that lung injury in the newborn is a continuous spectrum, and that artificially dividing that into 2 categories, with and without lung injury is an artificial distinction designed to aid research design, not to help babies, or their families. A description of long term respiratory morbidity between groups is essential, rather than a label based on an intermediate outcoem. Mortality, in contrast, is truly a dichotomous outcome, and if it can possibly be improved by low dose early hydrocortisone, than we should pursue that possibility with more studies.

  3. As I wrote in a previous blog post, I am involved in a very exciting, sort of a medical underground project, about providing GMP-produced probiotics for preterm infants.

    The non-profit company Neobiomics will provide a probiotics product in early 2018, fulfilling specific needs for preterm infants. Non-profit refers to that any potential revenue is re-invested in next generation products or leads to a price reduction. The idea is to have a self-propelling business, without commercial interests.

    Due to rigorous quality standards (GMP + "Infant grade") and small production batch size we estimate a price of 3 euros per stickpack, i.e. the monthly cost will be around 90 euros/infant. Given larger batches (more people use the product), we expect the price to drop in the future.  

    To make the final internal decision on setting up the production line and produce the first batch, we need to gather information on potential use of this product.

    If you are interested to use the Neobiomics Probiotics product, “from the community – to the community”, please respond to a few upcoming questions that you find on this URL: https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/neobiomics

    It takes about 1-2 minutes to respond.

  4. Presenting the 2nd Presentation of Neonatal CME @ Jamnagar on 25th October. Its : " NEONATAL JAUNDICE- Current Concepts by Dr.Maulik Shah MD. Video link on You Tube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hLMP4FHOdIk. Comments and feedback most welcome.Neonatal_jaundice_maulik.thumb.png.54d6d

    • 1
      entry
    • 1
      comment
    • 1160
      views

    Recent Entries

    What is the diagnosis?

    35 gestation weeks, IUGR, preterm gemini B babygirl has dyspnoe and multiplex fibroma around both ears. She is fed via nasogastric tube, because she can not swallow. She has peripapillary pigment ring, hepato-splenomegaly with abnormal ribs, vertebrae and spine morphology (X-ray attached). Other findings were normal. Her brother is well, he only has hydronephrosis on one side without any symptoms.

    Any suggestions are welcome.

    • 1
      entry
    • 1
      comment
    • 1722
      views

    Recent Entries

    hi

    Is adrenalin better than dopamine for maintaining/elevating BP in PPHN. Please tell me about your practice

    • 1
      entry
    • 16
      comments
    • 3400
      views

    Recent Entries

    Preterm baby 35 week was admitted to NICU for total 5 days

    All investigations were normal including blood C/S , CRP CBC And serum Electrolytes

    In day 4 , Baby develop this rash only for 20 minutes then disappear without treatment

    • 1
      entry
    • 3
      comments
    • 1815
      views

    Recent Entries

    What are the indicators we can use to check the quality of care in a neonatal unit?

  5. Mortality rates of congenital heart disease has fallen dramatically over the years, nicely demonstrated by a cohort British study. The annual numbers of deaths decreased from 1460 in 1959 to 154 in 2009. Survival was especially improved in infancy. Infants comprised 63% of all CHD deaths during 1959-63, but only to 22% in 2004-08.

    Naturally, the development of pediatric cardiology, thoracic surgery and pediatric intensive care have been essential for this dramatic improvement.

    The improved situation for infants with congenital heart disease is quite similar and parallel to improved outcomes for preterm infants. Only a few decades ago, the majority of today's survivors would have had a poor prognosis.

    With this growing generation of "new survivors" comes new challenges. In neonatal and adult medicine we know little about aging individuals born preterm, and I believe the same applies to aging individuals born with congenital heart disease.

    Knowles RL, Bull C, Wren C, & Dezateux C (2012). Mortality with congenital heart defects in England and Wales, 1959-2009: exploring technological change through period and birth cohort analysis. Archives of disease in childhood, 97 (10), 861-5 PMID: 22753769

  6. Blog ali

    • 1
      entry
    • 1
      comment
    • 1733
      views

    Recent Entries

    ali
    Latest Entry
    Hi everyone,

    Blindingly obvious I know, but our visitor numbers seem to have recently exploded. Today we topped 150 at one point. I know membership is increasing but visitor numbers seem to have changed up a gear as well, very exciting. Are we recording visitor numbers? It wouldn't be neonates without a number :)

    Best wishes

    Alistair

  7. Blog JACK

    • 1
      entry
    • 1
      comment
    • 1830
      views

    Recent Entries

    It sounds simple, but actually it turns out to be very complicated and controversial.

    The question is are we improving our NICU ? Has our NICU performance remained the same for the past few years?

    What about the performance of our NICU staff members (Medical and Nursing ) ? Are they improving themselves?

    That was the easy part.

    Now the difficult part.

    We can only improve a thing which can be measured. So to improve our NICU, we have to monitor some parameters of our NICU and then trend it and then find what we want to improve in that measure and then plan an intervention and then implement that intervention and then monitor the performance after the implementation of the interventions. (phew that was difficult to type right !)

    So lets see....if we heard that NICU in XYZ hospital had mortality of ELBW babies 5 years back of 50 % and that now they are reporting ELBW mortality of 20%...we definitely know they have improved themselves. How about nosocomial infection rate in a NICU in XYZ hospital was 5 per 1000 patient-days 5 years back and now was 1.5 per 1000 patient-days...we definitely know they have improved.

    One very nice example to illustrate this improvement is here: http://www.lafayettegeneral.com/pavilion/Level-III-Neonatal-Intensive-Care-Unit-1/Key-Performance-Indicators-3

    There are so many parameters to be monitored in a NICU..I think we just have to select what is suitable in our setup balancing our resources. We have to be cautious not to overdo it...as then it will only be on paper and have no actual benefit for the NICU.

    the other (more difficult part) is to monitor the performance of NICU staff. Here also there are many options. One beloved one is compliance with infection control practices (especially ...hand hygiene). Success rate of intubations could be used for residents. How about IV infiltration (IV burns) rate for nurses? Morbidity/Mortality outcomes for consultants/attending ?

    Once staff know that they are being monitored...performance automatically improves. Once you start rewarding good performance......then people start having a healthy competition to improve themselves....the ultimate winner is the patient...NICU performance measures improve.....And thats the ultimate aim...to improve patient outcomes...

    The floor is open.

  8. selvanr4
    Latest Entry

    hello to everyone,

    we are leaving Stockholm today after a wonderful educative and progressive conference of evidence based neonatology.

    We had nice interactive sessions lectured by topclass professionals. Had a nice boat trip coupled with a nice welcome function.

    Got into touch with new friends. Personally had direct interaction with the team members who have been known to us only through cyberspace.

    Nice experience and we like to thank everyone.

    see you next time with more to learn.

    bye now

    selvan

    Lotus Hospital

    Erode, Indai

  9. hi every one happy new year where is the image library

    • 1
      entry
    • 2
      comments
    • 1687
      views

    Recent Entries

    Dear colleagues....

    Our neonat medicine started in my town Gaza in the 70's, thanks to my professor DR. salwa Aman who alone started the work that time,,,it is was a sort of primitive stuff, she started to collect donations from here and there to build ,buy incubators and other equipment....things went further but slowly on....many of our staff got the training and experience from neighbouring countriers..so we progressed further...forgot to say that i joined dr salwa inطher syruggle to build a neonatal service in early 80's....finally here we are with well-built NICU: 30 incubators, 18 are intensive care, 15 ventilators not so advanced but ok...a staff of 16 physicians, 34 nurse serving 1000 deliveries a month in our hospital,Shifa Hospital..so what do think of our professional journey?..write t o me much like to hear from you...

  10. as a traveler, you meet all kinds of people, experience all kinds of locations, learn different ways of handling the same issue, as well as being in a position to teach and share. while i have been traveling now for 3 yrs, never have i had the last part of this brought home to me as strongly as my currently ending contract, especially the teaching part.

    as a general rule, i don't mind teaching. i enjoy sharing my knowledge and experience, as long as i have time to do it. however, in the middle of coding a baby is not when i prefer to have to be giving instructions to less experienced nurses about removing drapes to maintain warmth, chosing iv sites, how fast to push amp or how to dilute gent (or reminding peds who don't frequently work with neonates about nrp guidelines for bagging...).

    i have missed the level III NICU (this being a low level II Nursery). i have missed being surrounded by peers who know how to hold a baby for iv starts and how to help tape the iv once it's in place. or who know how to mix antibiotics and administer them. or even someone who knows appropriate technique for a heelstick. the little things. and i've missed "sick" babies.

    yes, it's been an invaluable experience. i have revisited skills that i have not had an opportunity to practice as frequently being in larger units where everybody is wanting the experience. i have gained an appreciation for the new grads and their openness for learning, as well as being thankful the more experienced nurses who know when to worry and when not to about a healthy term kid.

    and i have been given the gift of thanks. from parents. from other nurses, both new and seasoned. from techs. and from the peds.

    i have been reminded of my own start in working in this specialty, often laughing at seeing myself in the new grads, and becoming disgusted with myself when i recognize some of the harsher behavior i exhibit towards ignorance that was once visited upon me by those with more experience.

    so, as another contract winds down, i stop to think, and reflect. at the people i have worked with. a few particular cases. the geographical area i'll be leaving. but mostly that i am heading back to a level III NICU where my heart is.

    • 1
      entry
    • 2
      comments
    • 1812
      views

    Recent Entries

    First time blogger!! I am finally gaining real clarity now about how I want to be a 'nurse' alongside parents and other caregivers who have babies in the neonatal unit. The concept family centred care needs to be fully integrated into my being. So how do I achieve this? I see colleagues genuinely trying to 'help' families by their nursing actions and yet it continues to frustrate me that some of these actions take away the parents choices and impacts on their ability to fully engage with their neonate. I thought empowerment was the key but that still implies I have the power to give away to the families. Whether I like it or not this may be true purely because of the nature of the NICU environment but it fails to truly show how I work alongside or with the families. I am now convinced that if I can integrate an enabling focus into how I want to be as a nurse I can then be a partner in the care. Any thoughts from colleagues??

    Marpsie

  11. Medhaw

    • 0
      entries
    • 0
      comments
    • 825
      views

    No blog entries yet

  12. shesu

    • 0
      entries
    • 0
      comments
    • 1006
      views

    No blog entries yet

    • 0
      entries
    • 0
      comments
    • 415
      views

    No blog entries yet