Jump to content
  • What's on 99nicu

    Browse the latest updates below! You can also browse the sidebar for latest topics, blog posts and articles!

All Activity

This stream auto-updates     

  1. Today
  2. Finally, we have now opened the registration to the next 99nicu Meetup, framed as Future of Neonatal Care – advancing the management of newborns The conference will be taking place in the very center of Vienna, Austria, 9-12 April 2018. The exciting program includes a wide range of lectures and workshops by neonatal staff with real expertise. Topics include the Golden Hour, pain relief, genetic disease, NICU design, palliative care, milk banking, lung ultrasound, consciousness of the newborn, follow-up after preterm birth, and hypothermia. One new feature compared to the 1st meetup this June in Stockholm, is that we will run a Young Lecturer Session, promoting neonatal staff early in their carrier. Find the program and info on how to register on https://99nicu.org/meetup/ See you in the Future of Neonatal Care
  3. We have now published the program and opened the registration here: https://99nicu.org/meetup/program/ Will send out an email to all. Looking forward to meet some of you there! If you have any fellows wanting to be part of the Young Lecturer Session - please ask them to look here: https://99nicu.org/meetup/young-lecturer-sessions/
  4. Given that today is world prematurity day it seems fitting to talk about prematurity at the absolute extreme of it. It has been some time since as a regional program we came to accept that we would offer resuscitation to preterm infants born as early as 23 weeks gestational age. This is perhaps a little later in the game that other centers but it took time to digest the idea that the rate of intact survival was high enough to warrant a trial of resuscitation. This of course is not a unilateral decision but rather a decision arrived at after consultation with the family and interprofessional team. To be sure it is not an easy one. Other centers have argued that resuscitation should be offered to those infants as young as 22 weeks gestational age and data now exists due to enough centres doing so to provide families with some guidance as to expected survival rates and importantly the likelihood of disability. This topic has been covered previously in /2015/09/25/winnipeg-hospital-about-to-start-resuscitating-infants-at-23-weeks/. Why cover this topic again? Well an article on CNN might have something to do with it. Resuscitating Below 22 weeks This week as I was perusing the news I came across a rather shocking article on CNN. Born before 22 weeks, ‘most premature’ baby is now thriving. The article tells the tale of a baby delivered at 21 weeks and 4 days that now as a three year old is reaching appropriate milestones without any significant impairments. It is a story that is filled with inspiration and so I am not mistaken I am delighted for this child and their family that this outcome has occurred. When the lay press latches onto stories like this there is no doubt a great deal of sensationalism to them and in turn that gathers a lot of attention. This in turn is a great thing for media. A Few Caveats Though With the exception of pregnancies conceived through IVF the best dating we have is only good to about +/- 5 days when an early first trimester ultrasound is performed or the date of the last menstrual period is fairly certain. A baby though who is born at 21 weeks + 4 days may in fact be 22 +3 days or even more depending on when the dating was done (second trimester worse). Let’s not take away though from the outcome being this good even at 22 weeks. That is a pretty perfect outcome for this family but the point is that this baby may in fact be older than 21 weeks. Secondly, there are millions of babies born each year in North America. Some of these infants are born at 22 weeks. How do they fare overall? From the paper by Rysavy et al from 2015 the results are as follows. If you look at the overall rate of survival it is on an average of 5.1%. If you take a look though at those infants in whom resuscitation is provided that number increases to a mean of 23%. Intact survival is 9% overall. The odds aren’t great but they are there and I suspect the infant in the article is one of those babies. Flipping the argument though to the glass is half empty, 91% of infants born at 22 weeks by best estimate who are offered resuscitation will have a moderate or severe disability if they survive. I am not saying what one should do in this situation but depending on how a family processes the data they will either see the 110 chance of intact survival as a good thing or a 9/10 chance of death or disability as a very bad thing. What a family chooses though is anyone’s best guess. Should we resuscitate below 22 weeks if the family wishes? I guess in the end this really depends on a couple things. First off, how certain are the dates? If there is any degree of uncertainty then perhaps the answer is yes. If the dates are firm then I at least believe there is a barrier at which futility is reached. Perhaps this isn’t at 21 weeks as some patients may indeed be older but think about what you would offer if a family presented at 20 weeks and wanted everything done. What if it were 19 weeks? I suspect the point of futility for all lies somewhere between 19-21 weeks. As I prepare to attend the annual meeting in Ottawa tomorrow for the Fetus and Newborn Committee I think it is prudent to point out just how difficult all of this is. The current statement on Counselling and management for anticipated extremely preterm birth I think hits on many of these issues. The statement is the product on not only the think tank that exists on this committee but was the product of a national consultation. I know I may be biased since I sit on the committee but I do believe it really hits the mark. Should we be thinking about resuscitating at 21 weeks? For me the answer is one clouded by a whole host of variables and not one that can be easily answered here. What I do think though is that the answer in the future may be a yes provided such infants can be put onto an artificial placenta. Even getting a few more weeks of growth before aerating those lungs is necessary may make all the difference. The NICUs of tomorrow certainly may look quite different than they do now.
  5. Yesterday
  6. @Hamed I think the program is full now but if we can get a fellow to submit a lecture for the Young Lecturer Session that would be great. Please share ´in your networks if you think you know a candidate for such a mission: https://99nicu.org/meetup/young-lecturer-sessions/ BTW, while at EBNEO in India (#ebneo2017 tweets here), I heard Barbara Schmidt lecture on caffeine and she is just such a fantastic speaker. She spoke mostly about the story behind the CAP trial (that we all rely on now for caffeine) and all results from birth to their latest followup paper in JAMA (click to read). I can promise that we will have her on the invitation list for next-next meeting 2019
  7. IV Caffeine early after birth (DOL0) for preterm newborns.
  8. Last week
  9. What do YOU want for the next 99nicu Meetup (Vienna; April 2018)?

    Interesting topic indeed - unfortunately we will not be able to squeeze it in this upcoming meetup, but maybe the next?
  10. I am really looking forward to their talk!
  11. I would like to hear about PEEP limits in CPAPn . Does people realy us 8-10 cmH2O en CPAPn for SDR???
  12. Incredible¡¡ I can´t belive it. And the risk of NEC ??? And the price¡¡
  13. Thanks for this post. I also believe work from this project is very good and worth sharing the word about. At our next conference in April 2018 in Vienna, two nurses from the Butterfly project will come and lecture.
  14. CLD, volumen gurarantee

    @tarek and @Zsofia Dombi You are very much welcome, I hope I could be of any help. Concerning@tarek questions: Yes, this our policy for ELGANs, and majority of cases follow through the policy smoothly. However, as you know you could have the preterm on conventional ventilation (CMV) (A/C or SIMV) within the first 3days, and due to uncontrolled high PC02 in blood gas on CMV the mode is changed to HFO, without really making enough effort for troubleshooting and adjuesting the settings on CMV. I think that majority of preterms could be ventilated with A/C if you are comfortable with changing in the different components of the ventilator`s settings. This policy was implemented due a group of weak evidence: 1- The peak for IVH development is within the first 3 days of life. + 2- HFO has a slightly higher risk of IVH, and severe IVH. ==> Thus we try to avoid HFO during the first 3 days of life. On the other hand, CMV has a slightly higher risk of BPD, ROP and CLD/death at 36wks corrected age. Thus we shift to HFO after the first 3 days of life. Another opinion can state, that really all the evidence of increased risks on both arms are so low ranging from 0.02 to 0.05, and thus it doesn't really make a major difference to switch from one mode to another. Well may answer would be, It really depends on which mode you and your colleagues in the unit are comfortable with. This is true so long as your preterm has a homogeneous lung, but once it has a significantly heterogeneous lung eg PIEs or has a lot of secretions due to infection you will have to contemplate which ventilator and which mode is best for your patient. eg: in PIEs: HFO low frequency and low MAP with accepting higher FIO2. Or if a lot of secretions the Jet-HFV could be the best choice. @Zsofia Dombi Concerning CPAP, it would be always nice to mention how high was the PEEP. There are many reasons for CPAP failure, setting a low PEEP or unable to reach the desired PEEP (eg: try closing the baby`s moth with a pacifier), poor nursing care of CPAP, unfit nasal prong (try nasal mask), evolving BPD, PDA, increased apnea, and sepsis. Your departments dexamethason course sounds like a modified DART protocol for extubating babies who are stuck on ventilators for more than 7 to 21 days, if I follow you correctly your unit is using a total dose of dexamethason of 0.53 mg/kg over 10 days. It is smaller than what is used in some units in Canada which is a total dose of 0.89 mg/kg over 10 days. Best of luck.
  15. CLD, volumen gurarantee

    Sorry for my late answer and thanks for yours. At our ward we are doing mostly SIMV+PSV+VL. In this case the leak around the tube was 0-5%, so I tried SIPPV+VG, but her FiO2 need increased from 0.25 to 0.4 so I returned to original way. The next day she was accidentally extubated, what she tolerated well, so I tried on DuoPAP, but after 12 hours she developed severe CO2-retention, so dropped back to SIMV+PSV+VL. The interesting and unfortunate thing was that, she became septic after that. For stabilisation after the reintubation she needed higher pressures, like 6/20 PEEP/PIP. A week later, sepsis cured, I started the dexamethason course again. At our ward we start usually with 0.1mg/kg/24 and after 3 days giving half of it, and after next 3 days the half of halfs. I know its not an evidence based protocol., but usually it works for us. The next day after extubation, she had again 12 hours on DuoPAP, than back to the MV owing to several deep desaturations. But this time for good oxigenisation she needs HFOV now. So I'm really concerned with her case. There was no significant hyperinflation on the x-rays. @Hamed It'ts really interesting for me as well the initial A/C than HFOV mode, could you explain? Thank you!
  16. The APTS (Australian placental transfusion study) trial has just appeared on line. This was a high-quality multicenter, international RCT of immediate cord clamping (less than 10 seconds) compared to delayed clamping (60 seconds) for babies born less than 32 weeks gestation. (Tarnow-Mordi W, et al. Delayed versus Immediate Cord Clamping in Preterm Infants. the FPNEJM 2017.) Another trial arriving almost simultaneously is a smaller trial from the UK, which compared cord clamping at less than 20 seconds to clamping at at least 2 minutes, with reuscitation staring with the cord intact in the intervention group. (Duley L, et al. Randomised trial of cord clamping and initial stabilisation at very preterm birth. Archives of disease in childhood Fetal and neonatal edition. 2017.) I will come back to that trial in part 2. The benefits of delayed cord clamping for term babies are quite obvious from the RCTs, and basically show a significantly improved Hemoglobin/Iron status for the first year of life, which seems to lead to some improvement in fine motor function, in the long term, with no important down-side. The higher bilirubin levels among late-clamped babies do not lead to more phototherapy, if modern restrictive phototherapy guideline are followed. The only real disadvantage is that it is much harder to give blood to a public cord blood bank after delayed clamping. Public banks have been the source of stem cells for bone marrow transplants for hundreds of children (and as far as I know adults as well) so this should not be dismissed... For the preterm baby I thought that much of the evidence had been over-hyped, with claims of reduced IVH, and reduced NEC, based on tiny numbers from tiny trials, with no robust evidence of benefit, apart from higher hemoglobins, probably leading to fewer transfusions. What we really needed was a large RCT with enough power to answer questions about efficacy and safety. The APTS trial gives that power, with over 1500 babies randomized, and, although much smaller, the trial from England is the second largest trial, with over 260 babies. The remaining trials that have been quoted as the justification for the worldwide movement for delayed clamping in the preterm, have mostly been tiny, with sample sizes between 32 and 200. What did the APTS trial show? Speaking in the strictest sense it showed no difference between groups in the primary outcome. The primary outcome was a composite outcome of death, serious brain injury, late-onset sepsis, necrotising enterocolitis or severe retinopathy. When the study was planned bronchopulmonary dysplasia was also part of the primary outcome, but with changes in practice the authors found that the incidence of "BPD" was much higher than expected (many babies were on respiratory support with positive pressure and 21% oxygen at 36 weeks post-menstrual age), so during the trial, before the final data were analysed, BPD was deleted from the composite outcome. When you look at the individual components of the composite outcome, there is no sign of a benefit for any of the components of that composite, except one, that is mortality. When only one part of a composite outcome is positive, but it is much less frequent than the remaining parts, the overall composite may well be negative. This is one of the problems with composite outcomes, you can actually lose power for the most important part of the composite, whereas these composites are usually being used to try to increase power! The outcome of death should therefore strictly be considered to be a secondary outcome, and therefore treated with some scepticism. I'll come back to this point. Also important is the fact that 26% of the delayed clamping group did not get 60 seconds of delay, which was most often due to concerns about the neonatal status (70% of the time). This was unavoidable given the design, as most centers were not resuscitating babies with the cord intact. 20% of the delayed clamping group got the cord clamped before 30 seconds, the other 6% who did not follow protocol it was between 30 and 60 seconds. It would be interesting to have a "per-protocol" analysis of mortality results, which I would guess would show a greater difference between groups, as babies who had the delayed clamping interrupted because of concerns about neonatal status might well have a higher mortality. There is an analysis of the per-protocol effects on the primary outcome (in the supplementary appendix) which shows a difference (which may just be due to chance, p=0.2) : 37% with immediate clamping, and 33% with delayed clamping, but no mention of the components of that outcome. There is also a report of the causes of death in the supplementary appendix, causes which cover the entire range of causes of death among very preterm babies. The biggest single cause was septicemia, which was also the cause that showed the biggest difference between groups, 2.2% immediate clamping, and 0.5% delayed clamping. There is also an analysis in detail of head ultrasound findings which show no tendency to be different in any aspect between groups. Finally there were many fewer babies who needed blood transfusions with the delayed clamping (61% with immediate clamping, 52% with delayed clamping) but more babies with polycythemia (2% had hematocrit >65% with immediate clamping, 6% with delayed clamping, 1% over 70% immediate, 2% with delayed). There was no clinically important difference in bilirubin concentrations (mean was 3 micromoles higher with delayed). Overall then, a potential decrease in mortality, a decrease in the number of babies receiving transfusion, with a very small increase in polycythemia, which was probably not due to chance (p<0.001). What to do with these results? Well, as yet there is no signal for a clinically important harm of delayed cord clamping; with the proviso that babies who are intended to have delayed cord clamping may often have the cord clamped early. I think that a clinical approach planning for delayed clamping at, or perhaps after 60 seconds, is consistent with the best evidence, it will decrease the number of babies receiving transfusions, and might decrease mortality. We also need an updated systematic review and meta-analysis. But for that you will have to wait for part 3!
  17. The group in Newcastle in the UK has studied parents who suffered the loss of a twin. This is an unfortunately common experience in the NICU, twins and higher order multiples are much more likely to be born prematurely (for triplets it is actually quite rare to be born at full term), and for one twin to die, while the other is still being cared for in the NICU, happens frequently. Richards J, et al. Mothers' perspectives on the perinatal loss of a co-twin: a qualitative study. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2015;15:143. Richards J, et al. Health professionals' perspectives on bereavement following loss from a twin pregnancy: a qualitative study. J Perinatol. 2016;36(7):529-32. I remember as a young neonatologist (and yes, I can remember that far back) when this happened, we thought it was kind, when baby "Smith 1" died, that baby "Smith 2" should just become baby "Smith". Motivated by concern for the parents, and not wanting to emphasize the loss of the other twin each time we talked about the surviving twin, we basically effaced the memory of the dead twin from our conversation. I now think that was a major error, and this research confirms that thought. Although we were trying to decrease the pain of parents who were going through the loss of one twin, while still trying to care for the surviving twin (or triplet(s)); I think it was likely often experienced as trying to erase the memory of one of their babies. In my NICU we now make great efforts to use the first, given, name of each baby (unless the parents haven't yet decided), and talk about the babies among ourselves using both given and family names. I think that is a better way to refer to our patients, and stops the avoidance, we don't call the surviving baby "Smith twin 2", but "John Smith", and acknowledge the death of baby "Jane Smith". I think over the years we have come to understand many things which mark the experience of parents who have lost one of twins. But what really makes a difference to parents going through this cruelly painful experience; to have to remain in the NICU where one baby has died, while caring for another who might still be very sick? The studies from Newcastle shed some light on that experience. Here is one quote from the mothers' paper : What I got a lot of … the doctor at the time really quite upset me… she often said to me, ‘At least you’ve still got one’, and that was one of the worst things that anyone could possibly say. ‘You’ve still got [surviving twin] though’ and I know I’m really grateful I still have[surviving twin] but that’s like saying to someone that has a child of four and six and the six year old one dies, ‘well you’ve still got the other one, so that’s ok’. And it was really quite upsetting. I knew that she didn’t mean it in any nasty way’. From comments like that, and a thematic, qualitative, analysis of interviews with 14 mothers who had lost one of twins (some before birth, others after) the team have developed guidelines for helping mothers in such a situation. The concept of "grief on hold' is, I think, really important. These mothers don't feel like they can really grieve the dead baby, as they are trying to hold it together for the emotional needs of the surviving infant. The guidelines they have developed are available on their website, together with films made with parents speaking about their loss, and downloadable resources, available in several languages, including the pdf of a slide presentation, and a 2 page leaflet for parents. http://www.neonatalbutterflyproject.org
  18. CLD, volumen gurarantee

    @Hamed Thanks a lot You are always embressed me with your nice and valuable comments. Regarding AC for 3 days then HFOV really it surperized me a lot You are doing this for every ELGAN on ventilator or selected cases And what is the rationale behind this @Zsofia Dombi Thanks for sharing May i ask you is there is any hyperinflation in the x ray And what is your protocol regarding starting hydrochlorothiazide or dexamethazone for such cases
  19. World Prematurity Day

    Its also my birthday
  20. WHO recommendation with delayed cord clamping even for 3 minutes NRP guidlines latest edition with delayed cord clamping from 30 -60 seconds In preterms: Decrease incidence of IVH Decrease incidence of NEC Reduce need for transfusion Avoid hypovolemic hypotension For full term Studies showed that improve iron stores in first few months The American college of obstetrician and gynacologists recommend delayed cord clamping in there commite meeting in 2016
  21. Delayed cord clamping after preterm birth - hype or hope?

    @chienyichen maybe they have read a paper from 2015, a relatively small trial reviewed by @EBNEO , read the link below. I personally think that paper only shows a proxy outcome and that a larger trial with meaningful clinical outcomes (like RDS, BPD, IVH etc-etc) should show benefits before changing practise. (but we do delayed clamping though ) https://ebneo.org/2015/12/does-umbilical-cord-milking-result-in-higher-measures-of-systemic-blood-flow-in-preterm-infants/
  22. Delayed cord clamping after preterm birth - hype or hope?

    I am wondering if any one have experience about milking. Our Obs doctors seemed like to do it more.....
  23. Considering a contemporary definition of BPD that correlates with respiratory morbidity in childhood.
  24. Maybe we shouldn’t be in such a rush to stop caffeine.

    Very interesting and a good discussion and analysis of results. Thanks. There is a small mistake in the 4th line of the last paragraph entitled "Putting it into context" "........but the amount of time at 36, 27 and 38 weeks was 229, 118 and 84 seconds respectively..." 27 weeks should be 37 weeks.
  25. Earlier
  26. Hi How are you all is there any chances for fellowship in neonatology where do you work ? whats the requirement of acceptance for a physician from overseas countries ? i am a certified Arab broad specialist , i have a 3 years experience working in a level 3 Nicu in for a clinic with around 300 delivery per month . I've heard about the MTI program in uk , so do you know any information about it ? or any other similar program ? Thank you
  27. Delayed cord clamping after preterm birth - hype or hope?

    The wrath of combined outcomes!
  28. It would seem that the Opioid crisis is continuing to be front and centre in the news. Just today the President of the United States declared an Opioid Epidemic Emergency. Of course he was speaking primarily about the damage these drugs do on the family unit and those around them, the impact on the unborn child is significant as well. If this sounds familiar it is because I have written about this topic recently and in the past in the posts A Magic Bullet to Reduce Duration of Treatment and Hospital Stays for Newborns With NAS and Mandatory Drug-Testing ni PRegnancy: Lesson learned. I suppose I write about this topic often as at least where I work this is a problem which just won’t go away and takes up a tremendous amount of resources. What Can a Large Data Set Tell us? Pediatrix medical group that you may well be familiar with has a lot of data that can be mined from the hospitals in their network. When it comes to buprenorphine there is a lot of data to look at. In this case the question posed by VN Tolia et al in thier paper Antenatal methadone vs buprenorphine exposure and length of hospital stay in infants admitted to the intensive care unit with neonatal abstinence syndrome was whether there is a difference in infants born to mothers who have been exposed to methadone vs burprenorphine. Specifically they chose to use length of stay as the primary outcome in a retrospective review of 3364 infants admitted for management of NAS. Of these infants, 2202 (65%) were exposed to methadone and 1162 (34%) to buprenorphine. Before we get into what the results actually were it is important to highlight what this study will not tell us. By looking only at admissions for NAS we do not know whether the use of buprenorphine in mothers actually reduced admission for NAS so we are only speaking of the babies who were afflicted with NAS. When looking at the two groups, the median length of stay was 24 days for the methadone group and 21 for the buprenorphine which was found to be significantly different. In the secondary analysis another interesting finding (at least to me) was noted. When looking at the percentage of babies with a length of stay > 30 days the difference was significant at 34% vs 22% for buprenorphine. The authors here did a good job of doing their best to control for factors which could have influenced the results as they did a regression analysis to determine whether other factors such as gestational age, sex, type of treatment provided etc would explain the shortened length of stay and they found that it remained significant controlling for a wide variety of factors. Is three days worth it? It would be tempting to look at the 3 day median difference and shrug it off as no big deal. Remember though that we are in an epidemic are we not? What the study does not account for as well are the number of babies who could have been managed in a postpartum ward and also had a shortened length of stay. Let’s look at a city though where about 100 babies are admitted a year with NAS. A three day reduction in length of stay would translate into 300 patient days per year. By simply changing the medication a woman is being treated with in pregnancy from methadone to buprenorphine we could save almost one NICU bed for the whole year. That is nothing to sneeze at! Moreover if the reduction in admission rates are also true another one, two or more beds per year could be spared depending on the effectiveness of the drug. In the last post that spoke of using buprenorphine to treat NAS in babies I was concerned about the alcohol content of the syrup for administration in babies. Here we are talking about treating women rather than babies so this is not a concern (plus they would not be taking the pediatric suspension). I see little downside to using buprenorphine over methadone so the real question is how do we get the care providers for the mothers to make the switch? I have a feeling that is coming sooner rather than later.
  29. I guess many of you have seen that the Australian placental transfusion study is now published in NEJM. In this RCT - 1500 infants born <32 weeks were randomized to early vs late clamping (≤10 vs ≥60 sec). The results were... no clear benefits, the odds ratio was 1.00 (0.88.-1.13) for the combined primary outcome of death or major morbidity. We have not yet discussed in our NICU how to relate to those findings - we currently practise delayed clamping (at 60 sec). Thoughts?
  1. Load more activity
  • Who's Online   0 Members, 0 Anonymous, 28 Guests (See full list)

    There are no registered users currently online

  • Member Statistics

    6,831
    Total Members
    1,242
    Most Online
    Mark Lee
    Newest Member
    Mark Lee
    Joined
×