AllThingsNeonatal

Giving bronchodilators to preemies on a ventilator has certainly been tried before. The major issue to contend with is getting the drug to where it is supposed to be. Anyone reading who has a child with asthma knows that you should use an aerochamber when taking a puff to help with better distribution to the lung. Giving a puff or two without it largely ends up on the back of the throat. Similarly, giving puffs through an endotracheal tuberaises questions about how much of the medication winds up on the plastic tube rather than the smooth muscle of the airways where the medication is intended to be. This has been looked at in a cochrane review as well entitled Bronchodilators for the prevention and treatment of chronic lung disease in preterm infants Can Albuterol Save The Day? Albuterol is a beta agonist much like ventolin that can act on the smooth muscle of airways to achieve bronchodilation. Considering that preemies with immature lungs may have issues with both resistance and compliance, Raffay TM et al in their paper Response to first dose of inhaled albuterol in mechanically ventilated preterm infants chose to examine responsiveness in a group of 33 infants (all < 30 weeks at birth) to albuterol. Ideally, responsiveness would be done by pulmonary function testing but given that this was not possible in these infants they chose to examine other indicators of impact. After giving two puffs of 90 mcg of albeterol via a metered dose inhaler without an aerochamber the authors looked at changes in FiO2 as well as compliance and resistance measurements on the ventilator as a means of determining responsiveness. Ultimately, could they get drug into the distal airway in patients who were ventilated at about a month of age as shown in table 1 along with other baseline characteristics? What makes this different than other studies I suppose is the use of the ventilator measurements and their use of histogram data on oxygen saturation to ascertain responsiveness to treatment. This was an observational study based on a secondary analysis of a previous study so we don’t have sham controls to compare to. Having said that by administering the medication and seeing what happens immediately afterwards it is possibile to get a sense of whether the drug had an effect. So What if Any Effect Did It Have? From the figure in the paper the answer is some effect. Overall, post albuterol resistance for the 33 patients overall was found to decrease. Compliance and FiO2 (not shown in the graphs below) did not change though. What did change however was the percentage of time spent below 80 and 85% respectively comparing a 4 hour window pre and a 4 hour window post with respect to histograms from the patient monitor. Putting it together Ok so this isn’t a gold standard RCT looking at placebo treatments vs albuterol. It is hypothesis generating though as if resistance was decreased by albuterol one could expect improved delivery of O2 to the distal alveoli and therefore better oxygenation which is what is seen here. Should we be surprised that no difference in compliance is seen with albuterol therapy? I don’t think so as the effect of the drug is not on the distal alveoli and parenchyma but rather the more proximal branching airways. SInce airway resistance is governed by Poiseuille’s Law (you thought physics was over in high school?!) you can see that resistance (R) is directly proportional to the viscosity (n) and length (l) of the airway but inversely affected by the radius (r) to the 4th power. In other words if the radius of the airway after albuterol increases by 25% that effect is amplified to the 4th power in terms of reducing resistance. I suppose I am buying what they are selling here but again the key is finding a method of getting the drug to deposit not in the trachea or proximal bronchi but to the lower airways. I can’t help but wonder if use of high frequency jet ventilation which carries flow down the centre of the airway might be a very effective way of getting such puffs further into the lung. Speculation of course but perhaps someone a little more creative than I can figure out how to do that and test deposition. Should we use this routinely? Probably not as an everyday approach but it does make me wonder about those babies who are having a bad day so to speak. If one can glean from the ventilator that resistance has increased from one day to another might this be something worth trying? The authors found that the first treatment was effective but second and third not so much so to me this may just be a “hail mary” that is worth trying when nothing else seems to be working to reduce FiO2 in the presence of increased resistance. If anyone is doing this routinely I would be curious in hearing your own experiences.

A couple years back at the Canadian Pediatric Society annual meeting a discussion broke out about extubating infants to higher levels of CPAP. Conventional thinking had been to use levels between 5 – 8 cm H2O typically. I shared with the group the experience we had in Winnipeg (unpublished) of using higher levels from 9 -12 cm H2O with some degree of success in allowing earlier extubation. The group thought it was interesting but pointed out the lack of robust research in the area so were not so keen to “try it out”. Non-invasive positive pressure ventilation (NIPPV) has been used for some time in the neonatal world and has been compared to CPAP for extubation success and found to be superior as in this review Comparison of Complications and Efficacy of NIPPV and Nasal CPAP in Preterm Infants With RDS. In this review though as in others more typical CPAP levels are used so the question is whether the same efficacy would be seen with high level CPAP vs NIPPV. Canadian Study to the Rescue The study here is by Ahmad HA et al Comparison of High CPAP versus NIPPV in Preterm Neonates: A Retrospective Cohort Study and seeks to answer this question albeit in a retrospective fashion. The study is not well controlled since it is retrospective but it may be the best we have for now. Over a 3 year period the authors examined the outcomes for babies trialed on high CPAP (hCPAP of at least 9 cm H20) vs NIPPV. In each case they looked at the first episode of use. The modalities could have been used for extubation or as a primary means of support. The primary outcome was failure of the modality as defined by either intubation or change to the other strategy within 7 days. A total of 53 infants received hCPAP vs 119 NIPPV. Why the big difference? Since this was retrospective and not randomized it was up to the individual practioner which modality they wanted to try. If the majority of the unit favoured NIPPV this is why there would be such a difference. Herein lies the benefit of the primary outcome as if “conventional wisdom” was wrong and the other modality would be better then we should see a greater movement to the other strategy or more intubations in one group suggesting superiority of one vs the other. The groups however aren’t entirely equivalent at baseline. The babies in the hCPAP group are quite a bit smaller on the one hand which would favour the NIPPV group. On the other hand there is almost a significant difference in surfactant provision for the hCPAP arm which might favour the hCPAP group. The other thing also nearing statistical significance is when the intervention was trialed. The median time is 2 days for teh NIPPV group and 7 for hCPAP suggesting one may have been used more prophylactically and the other post extubation. Different strategies might make a difference to outcome? Also no infants received MIST or INSURE and all were started on traditional lower levels of CPAP prior to surfactant. Results The results tell an interesting story (I think) with the primary outcome being no different 62% in the hCPAP vs 55% with NIPPV. Looking at the patient outcomes in the figure from the paper one gets a little more detail and can surmise how people viewed the two modalities as a strategy and can see they were a bit different. There seems to have more confidence in the unit with NIPPV as a way to prevent intubation. For those that failed hCPAP 12/33 were intubated as the next step (about a third) while the other 2/3 were trialed on NIPPV. Looking at those started out on NIPPV, 38/66 were intubated directly 58% or almost 2/3 while 28/66 were trialed on hCPAP. Of the ones trialed on hCPAP 20/28 or 71% were still intubated. Comparatively of those who were changed from nCPAP to NIPPV 11/21 were intubated or about 50%. The authors find no difference in the primary outcome which is true. The problem of course with this analysis though is that there was no standardization with determining when one would choose to intubate. This issue can really play with the results. Let’s say for example that one Neonatologist really believes for the most part that NIPPV is the mode that can really prevent intubation more than hCPAP. It is conceivable that the reason in crossover intubations are less with NIPPV is that people were willing to tolerate a slightly higher pCO2 or a couple more apneas since they believe the modality is best and the infant will “get better soon”. On the other hand, infants already on NIPPV who are deteriorating might be intubated more readily as the attending might think “this hCPAP is a bunch of malarky” It is worth mentioning that the incidence of air leak was no different between the two, nor was NEC or feeding intolerance from exposing the babies to such high pressures. Conclusions The study doesn’t “prove” anything. I don’t see it as a complete waste though as it does a number of things. It does show that small infants can be managed with hCPAP in NICU without any significant increase in complications. It also sets the stage for a couple future prospective trials I can see. Firstly, a trial of traditional CPAP vs hCPAP is needed as some units don’t have access to NIPPV or simply don’t use. The second is a prospective trial with clear parameters for failure between hCPAP and NIPPV. Lastly, the authors ran the NIPPV and CPAP off ventilators in the units. The work of breathing would be potentially different with the use of devices solely designed for CPAP with fluidic flips. It would be important to use optimal devices for both modalities in such a trial and I for one can’t wait to see them.

Precision medicine is a growing field in which genetic factors, environment, metabolism and even lifestyle are taken into account when deciding who should receive a treatment or not. When it comes to bronchopulmonary dysplasia I believe anyone who works in Neonatal care can attest it is a mystery why some infants go on to develop BPD while others don’t. We do know that certain treatment strategies may increase risk such as using excessive volumes or pressure to ventilate and in the last 25 years the notion that your level of cortisol in the blood may make a difference as well. I have written about prophylactic hydrocortisone use before in Hydrocortisone after birth may benefit the smallest preemies the most! When looking at the literature thus far and taking into account the results of the individual patient meta-analysis the following table can be generated highlighting a summary of benefits. The question thus becomes if there is benefit for some infants under 26 weeks and then for some that are 26 and 27 weeks but there is also risk of harm, is there a way to select out those who are most likely to benefit with the least risk of harm. A baby’s initial cortisol level may be the answer The PREMILOC study was a double-blond multicentred trial of 523 infants randomly assigned to either prophylactic hydrocortisone in the first 24 hours of life or placebo. All infants were under 28 weeks at birth and received 1 mg/kg/d of hydrocortisone 1 mg/kg/d for 7 days followed by 3 days of 0.5 mg/kg/d for three days. In a pre-planned study coming out of the PREMILOC study, researchers looked at the role of baseline cortisol in predicting response to treatment or risk of adverse outcomes. What they found in examining baseline levels for both treatment and placebo groups was that a relationship exists between the baseline level and such outcomes. From Table 4 they found a relationship between survival without BPD and a higher initial level of cortisol but found no such relationship in the treatment arm. The threshold of what was considered high was 880 nmol/L although the mean cortisol was in the 400-500 nmol/L range. in other words, if having adequate physiologic levels of cortisol is the goal and a baby already has that, giving more non-antiinflammatory dosing of hydrocortisone doesn’t yield benefit. Similarly, when looking at side effects a positive correlation was found between higher baseline levels of cortisol and risk of grade III/IV IVH and spontaneous intestinal perforation. It would seem therefore that if a baby has the level of cortisol that they would normally have from a physiologic perspective they are no different than a placebo arm patient when given hydrocortisone as you bring them to where they need to be. When you double the dose however that they should have, side effects begin to rear their ugly head. How can you use this information? From personal conversations I know that many centres are struggling with what to do about giving hydrocortisone. On the one hand there isn’t much benefit (if at all) for BPD in the 24 and 25 week infants but they do better from a neurodevelopmental standpoint. On the other hand there is a benefit in the 26 and 27 week infants but you may predispose them to side effects as well. This is where precision medicine comes in. One option for centers unsure of who to provide this to (if at all) could be to use a threshold of 880 nmol/L and if the initial level is above this you would not treat but if below offer treatment. This level while found in the study to be predictive of side effects in particular if high does seem very high to me. I would think most babies would qualify which is not necessarily a bad thing but in our center we have typically used levels above 400 or 500 as an adequate stress response. Regardless of the level picked one would be using physiologic data to determine who to give hydrocortisone to as a way to try and maximize benefit and minimize harm for the individual patient. Make no mistake. Regardless of whether you decide to try this for your patients I don’t believe this is a magic bullet. The best chances for our patients come from having bundles of evidence based based practices and applying them to the patient population if we hope to reduce BPD and minimize risk from any side effects of our treatments. The question is whether prophylactic hydrocortisone should be part of this bundle. What do you think?

This post is special to me. A redemption of sorts. When I was a fellow in Edmonton in the early 2000s my fellowship project was to see whether heliox (helium/oxygen) given to piglets with meconium aspiration syndrome (MAS) would improve ventilation and measures of pulmonary hypertension vs controls. Why heliox? There had been work done with this gas for other conditions and the lower viscosity of the gas (who hasn’t sucked on a helium balloon to see the effect of helium) means that the flow of the gas in a tube is more linear that regular air. Turbulent flow as with air/oxygen mixtures creates more resistance to flow than linear flow with heliox. Imagine if you will this linear flow slipping more easily past particles of meconium partially blocking airways and you get the idea of why heliox might work. One thing to bear in mind though is that as your FiO2 goes up the percentage of helium drops so the properties described work best at low FiO2 so flow is more linear. I collected meconium from diapers in the NICU and created a NS slurry of meconium and then instilled it into the trachea’s of these piglets through a tracheostomy (they were too small to intubate for me at least). A flow probe was put around the pulmonary artery to look for evidence of pulmonary hypertension. We saw some interesting trends but the paper never saw the light of day for a variety of reasons that I won’t go in to here. Originally I had wanted to do the study as a small RCT in humans but I was advised that although heliox is an inert gas I should do the animal study first. That was the end of the heliox story as far as I was concerned as I hadn’t thought much about it since that time. I will admit though that anytime I had a baby with bad meconium aspiration syndrome though the thought did pop into my head. The Study Has Arrived Imagine my surprise when this week an RCT from China entitled A randomized single‐center controlled trial of synchronized intermittent mandatory ventilation with heliox in newborn infants with meconium aspiration syndrome came across my inbox. The authors used a power calculation based on some previous work in RDS using heliox to determine they needed 28 neonates in each arm to show a difference. In the end they managed 71 total with 35 in the heliox and 36 in the control arm. Inclusion criteria were a diagnosis of MAS on x-ray, GA ≥37 weeks and ≤42 weeks, need for intubation due to a pH <7.2/PCO2 >60 mmHg. The study could not be blinded as one would not be able to hide the large tanks for heliox so for any study like this it would be unavoidable. One thing that differs in terms of management from my own practice is that the authors in this study used SIMV pressure limited ventilation as the ventilatory strategy as opposed to AC/VG that my unit would typically use. Initial ventilator PIP of 15–28 cmH2O, PEEP of 4–10 cmH2O, and RR of 15–45 breaths/min; FiO2 of 0.21 to 1 to reach the target oxygen saturation (SpO2) of 90%–95%. The intervention group received heliox for 6 hours and then switched over to air/oxygen while the control group was ventilated with air/oxygen from the start. The extubation criteria included PIP ≤15 cmH2O, gradually enhanced effective spontaneous breathing, a ventilator breathing frequency ≤10/min, and normal blood gas analysis results. The main outcomes were PaO2/FiO2 (P/F), the extubation time and the hospital length of stay in the NICU. Aside from measuring the ventilatory responses and time of extubation the authors also examined the effect of heliox as an anti-inflammatory agent based on previous results demonstrating markers of inflammation can be attenuated by use of the gas. The Results To start with, the babies in both arms were equivalent at the start of the study in terms of inflammatory markers and some clinical variables. As you will see from the following figures a number of important findings are noted. The main marker of oxygenation used for this study was the PaO2/FiO2 ratio and this was statistically different (301 ± 22 vs. 260.64 ± 24.83, p < .001). Secondly, extubation time (78 ± 30 vs. 114 ± 28.07, p < .001 and length of hospital stay in days were also shorter 15.3 ± 4.2 vs. 19.11 ± 4.01, p < .001. The authors state that the following markers of pO2, pH and pCO2 shown in the graphs were all significantly improved in the heliox group but looking at the first two I find that hard to believe as the curves look almost superimposed. pCO2 however could be different in particular given the linear flow described above so ventilation might be improved. Finally, across the board, markers of inflammation were noted to improve with administration of heliox as well as markers of myocardial injury. The gas may have done what it was supposed to do. I wish the conclusions were that easy I want to like this paper so badly. Sadly, I have some pretty significant reservations. It is helpful to see that the two groups began at a similar PaO2/FiO2 ratio. What is missing though is the ventilatory requirements to get to that point. There is no information provided as to the mean airway pressures or PIP/PEEP for each group over time to get a sense of whether the two groups in terms of severity of illness were the same. Yes we know that the inflammatory markers at the start were similar but could the difference in changes of inflammation relate to a progressive rise in the control group that were just sicker rather than a protective effect of heliox to reduce inflammation? Also when one looks at the change in pCO2 how do you interpret that without knowing the minute ventilation to achieve those data points? It is really unfortunate that the authors did not use oxygenation index (MAP X FiO2/PaO2) as this would have taken the ventilation component at least into account. Would be helpful as well to know the weaning strategy in each group as without blinding might the authors have reacted more aggresively with weaning of the ventilator to get to extubatable settings knowing that the babies were receiving the intervention. As there was no weaning strategy planned out from the start we can only guess. Lastly, one could have possibly gotten around the inability to hide the heliox tanks by having a Neonatologist not on service take each blood gas data and sight unseen suggest changes to ventilation without being able to see which arm a baby was in. I will end on a positive note though. It has been almost twenty years since I did the piglet study using heliox. I had always hoped that this research would see the light of day in a human model although my piglet data didn’t show much benefit however the intervention was shorter than this study. I think this study is worthy of being repeated using a different mode of ventilation that does not rely on manual changes to PIP but rather by using a VG mode the baby would be gradually weaned as compliance improves. Any further study needs to address differences that were missing from this paper as well. I don’t think this is the last we will see of heliox and I look forward to seeing another paper although if it takes another twenty years I may be out of this line of work.

If you work in NICU you will have seen many babies who have passed through the stages of apnea, weaned off respiratory support and have reached a sufficient weight for discharge but alas will just not feed. Different strategies have been employed to get these infants feeding that rely in many cases on a cue based approach but in the end there are some that just won’t or can’t do it. Many of these babies will be sent home either with NG feedings or if it appears to be a more long term situation a gastrostomy tube. For this blog post I am going to present to you some novel research that suggests there may be another way to approach this and would like to thank one of the followers of my social media for alerting me to this work. You know who you are as the saying goes! Transcutaneous Auricular Vagus Nerve Stimulation taVNS This was an open label Phase 0 trial (few patients as a pilot) using taVNS to help improve feeding in ex-preterm or 3 recovering from HIE infants who were now past term and all headed towards a gastrostomy tube. The hospital carrying out the study entitled Transcutaneous Auricular Vagus Nerve Stimulation-Paired Rehabilitation for Oromotor Feeding Problems in Newborns: An Open-Label Pilot Study by Badran BW et al did not come out of thin air. Prior research in adult patients recovering from stroke found in multiple studies (all referenced in the paper) that motor stimulation accompanied by VNS improves motor function recovery. The objective here then was to see if stimulation of the auricular nerve along with assessment and motor treatments from an occupational therapist once a day could help improve feeding and avoid GT placement. The trial overview is as shown below. The centre in which the study was done had a historical rate in this population of <10% of such patients avoiding a GT (all reaching term equivalent age and not showing an improvement in feeds). This was demonstrated in previous work by at the Medical University of South Carolina (MUSC). “Preterm infants who have not reached full PO feeds by 40-week gestational age (GA) and/or after 40 days of attempting PO feeds have a >90% chance of eventually needing G-tube implantation to achieve full enteral feeds (Ryan and Gehle, 2019).” The Intervention taVNS was done once a day during a bottle feed and timed with observed suckling and swallowing by an OT. The stimulation was stopped during a pause in feeding. As you read this you may be concerned about side effects (as I was) of passing an electrical current to the ear and stimulating the auricular branch of the vagus nerve. This has been shown in other work to activate both afferent and efferent pathways of the vagus nerve and enhance plasticity and functional motor recovery. Could you then apply the same to improving development of the motor pathways of the preterm newborn or patient recovering from HIE? The authors examined skin irritation, pain scores and incidence of bradycardia before and during feeding while stimulation was occurring and found no difference in any of the measures. In order to minimize pain the authors increased the current by 0.1 mA until they perceived stimulation by change in facial expression, shrugging or fidgety movements. In the event of an increase in pain scoring by 3 the dose was decreased by the same amount. in the end the intervention was deemed safe without any adverse effects. The primary outcome was ability to increase and maintain full daily PO intake for 4 days (>120 mL/kg/d and maintain a weight gain of >20 g/day until discharge. Why you should care about the results If you work in a hospital like mine you would probably find that once the discussion about a GT placement begins, few miraculously avoid it. In this study they found that 8 of the 14 patients or 57% avoided the GT. Their historical achievement in this regard was <10%. This could be by chance of course since the study is a small one but when looking at the PO intake between non-responders and responders they demonstrate the following. The authors found no statistically significant increase in the non-responders after the taVNS in PO feeds but also note there were three infants born to mothers with diabetes in this group. I have commented before on the effect of diabetes on successful feeding so this certainly could have affected the success of this group. If you look at the change over time in the responder group they look graphically like there was an upwards trend in the feeding ability prior to the intervention although the increase or slope of the improvement due to small numbers was not significant. The takeoff in feeding afterwards was. The findings in this study are extremely exciting to me. As units across the globe struggle with patient flow, one of the most common reasons for these patients to stay in hospital is no longer BPD or apnea but inability to feed. The idea that such a simple intervention that is done once daily for 30 minutes might influence the development of feeding coordination in these at risk infants is phenomenal in terms of its impact on patient flow. If you wonder about whether this is a one off study, there is a lot of active research in this area. A quick search of clinicaltrials.gov uncovers 61 studies on taVNS recruiting at the moment for a variety of ailments. In fact the next study is a Phase 1 trial aiming to recruit 40 patients and is underway. If interested the link to the study is here. Stay tuned!

With American Thanksgiving coming up this weekend a post about “cold turkey” seemed apropos. You can’t work in Neonatology and not be familiar with CPAP. We have learned much about this modality in the last couple decades as clinicians have moved more and more towards non-invasive support as the preferred strategy for supporting newborns regardless of gestational age. Ask a Neonatologist how they use CPAP and you will find varied opinions about how high to go and how quickly to wean. I have written about one weaning strategy before on this blog using monitor oxygen saturation histogram data to make such decisions Improve your success rate in weaning from CPAP. One question though that has often been asked is what level of CPAP is best to remove a baby from? In particular for our smallest infants who may have BPD or reduced pulmonary reserve due to lower numbers of alveoli as they continue to develop should you discontinue at +5, +4 or +3? This question is what some creative authors from Texas sought to answer in the paper being discussed today. To Wean or Not To Wean? Kakkilaya V et al published Discontinuing Nasal Continuous Positive Airway Pressure in Infants ≤32 Weeks Gestational Age: A Randomized Control Trial in the Journal of Pediatrics this October. The authors studied infants from 23+0 to 32+6 weeks gestational age at birth and looked at whether a strategy of discontinuing from +5 or weaning from +5 to +3 then stopping resulted in fewer failures from stoppage. Infants were recruited in two ways. Some infants were intubated with planned extubation to pressures from +5 to +8 while others were on CPAP always. The study included 226 infants or which 116 were assigned to control so had removal of CPAP at +5 if after 24 hours they met the stability criteria below. The other 110 infants reduced CPAP from +5 once every 24 hours if the same criteria were met. Reasons for restarting CPAP were also as shown below at the bottom of Table 1. If an infant failed then they went back to the level of CPAP they had been on previously when stability criteria were met. Once they had stability criteria at that level again for 24 hours the wean could resume. Did they manage to find a difference? Table 5 reveals the significant finding here which is that for the primary outcome there was no difference and it didn’t matter whether the infants were ventilated or not. One finding that was different was the number of neonates who failed to stop CPAP two or more times. This favoured the weaning approach. Aside from that the groups were comparable and there really wasn’t much benefit seen from one approach versus the other. Thoughts About the Study The study was a fairly straightforward one and although there wasn’t a significant result found there are some questions that I think we can think about. The stability criteria did not have results from histogram analysis included as a measure of stability. I can’t help but wonder if addition of this approach would have identified some infants who were actually not ready to wean. Having said that, one challenge is to come to an agreement on what a stable histogram is. Based on a survey from my own colleagues recently I would say like many things in Neonatology, we are all over the map. If this study were to be repeated using histograms for decisions on weaning some sort of agreement would be needed on what qualifies as a stable histogram. Our group has already tended to use +4 as the final weaning step for our ELBW and VLBW infants based on anecdotal experience that many of these kids if stopped at +5 will fail even when they seem to be stable. Repeating this study looking at weaning from +4 to +3 before stopping vs stopping at +4 could be interesting as well. Finally, I do wonder if the wean was too fast to show a difference. It is not uncommon practice in the smallest infants to keep them on +4 for a couple days even if it seems that the histograms would indicate the baby is ready to stop CPAP. Perhaps a weaning strategy of allowing a minimum of q48h instead of q24h would have found different results? I do think the authors explored a great question and I would be reluctant here to “throw the baby out with the bathwater”. There is something here but based on the methodology (which I don’t think is flawed per se) I think they just couldn’t prove what I suspect is true.

This could turn into a book one day I suppose but I have become interested in chalenging some of my long held beliefs these days. Recently I had the honour of presenting a webinar on “Dogmas of Neonatology” for the Indian Academy of Pediatrics which examined a few practices that I have called into question (which you can watch in link). Today I turn my attention to a practice that I have been following for at least twenty years. I have to also admit it is something I have never really questioned until now! In our institution and I suspect many others, infants born under 1250g have been fed every two hours while those above every three. The rationale for this has been that a two hour volume is smaller and causes less gastric distention. This in theory would benefit these small infants by helping to not compromise ventilation or lead to reflux. Overwhelming the intestine with large distending boluses would also in theory lead to less necrotizing enterocolitis. All of this of course has been theoretical and I can thank those who preceded me in Neonatology for coming up with these rules! Study Challenges This Old Belief Yadav A et al published Two-hourly versus Three-hourly Feeding in Very Low Birthweight Neonates: A Randomized Controlled Trial out of India (well timed given my recent talk!). The authors randomized 175 babies born between 1000-1500g to either be fed q2h vs q3h once they began protocol feeding. The primary outcome was time to full feedings. Curiously, the paper indicates they decided to do a preplanned subgroup analysis of the 1000-1250 and 1251 -1500g groups but in the discussion it sounds like this is going to be done as a separate paper so we don’t have that data here. The study controlled conditions for determining feeding intolerance fairly well. As per the authors: “Full enteral feed was defined as 150 mL/Kg/day of enteral feeds, hypoglycaemia was defined as blood glucose concentration <45mg/dL [15]. Feed intolerance was defined as abdominal distension (abdominal girth ≥2 cm), with blood or bile stained aspirates or vomiting or pre-feed gastric residual volume more than 50% of feed volume; the latter checked only once feeds reached 5 mL/kg volume [16]. NEC was defined as per the modified Bells staging.” We don’t use gastric residuals in our unit to guide cessation of feedings anymore but the groups both had residuals treated the same way so that is different but not somethign that I think would invalidate the study. The patients in the study had the baseline characteristics shown below and were comparable. Results It will be little surprise to you that the results indicate no difference in time to full feedings as shown in Figure 2 from the paper. The curves for feeding advancement are essentially superimposed. Feeding every two vs three hours made no difference whatsoever. Looking at secondary outcomes there were no differences as well in rates of NEC or hypoglycemia. Importantly when examining rates of feeding intolerance 7.4% of babies in the 2 hour and 6.9% in the 3 hour groups had this issue with no difference in risk observed. Taking the results as they are from this study there doens’t seem to be much basis for drawing the line at 1250g although it would still be nice to see the preplanned subgroup analysis to see if there were any concerns in the 1000-1250 group. Supporting this study though is a large systematic review by Dr. A. Razak (whom I have collaborated with before). In his systematic review Two-hourly versus three-hourly feeding in very low-birth-weight infants: A systematic review and metaanalysis. he concluded there was no difference in time to full feeds but did note a positive benefit of q3h feeding in the 962 pooled infants with infants fed 3-hourly regainin birth weight earlier than infants fed 2-hourly (3 RCTs; 350 participants; mean difference [95% confidence interval] -1.12 [-2.16 to -0.08]; I2 = 0%; p = 0.04). This new study is a large one and will certainly strengthen the evidence from these smaller pooled studies. Final Thoughts The practice of switching to q2h feedings under 1250g is certainly being challenged. The question will be whether the mental barriers to changing this practice can be broken. There are many people that will read this and think “if it’s not broken don’t fix it” or resist change due to change itself. The evidence that is out there though I would submit should cause us all to think about this aspect of our practice. I will! This could turn into a book one day I suppose but I have become interested in chalenging some of my long held beliefs these days. Recently I had the honour of presenting a webinar on “Dogmas of Neonatology” for the Indian Academy of Pediatrics which examined a few practices that I have called into question (which you can watch in link). Today I turn my attention to a practice that I have been following for at least twenty years. I have to also admit it is something I have never really questioned until now! In our institution and I suspect many others, infants born under 1250g have been fed every two hours while those above every three. The rationale for this has been that a two hour volume is smaller and causes less gastric distention. This in theory would benefit these small infants by helping to not compromise ventilation or lead to reflux. Overwhelming the intestine with large distending boluses would also in theory lead to less necrotizing enterocolitis. All of this of course has been theoretical and I can thank those who preceded me in Neonatology for coming up with these rules! Study Challenges This Old Belief Yadav A et al published Two-hourly versus Three-hourly Feeding in Very Low Birthweight Neonates: A Randomized Controlled Trial out of India (well timed given my recent talk!). The authors randomized 175 babies born between 1000-1500g to either be fed q2h vs q3h once they began protocol feeding. The primary outcome was time to full feedings. Curiously, the paper indicates they decided to do a preplanned subgroup analysis of the 1000-1250 and 1251 -1500g groups but in the discussion it sounds like this is going to be done as a separate paper so we don’t have that data here. The study controlled conditions for determining feeding intolerance fairly well. As per the authors: “Full enteral feed was defined as 150 mL/Kg/day of enteral feeds, hypoglycaemia was defined as blood glucose concentration <45mg/dL [15]. Feed intolerance was defined as abdominal distension (abdominal girth ≥2 cm), with blood or bile stained aspirates or vomiting or pre-feed gastric residual volume more than 50% of feed volume; the latter checked only once feeds reached 5 mL/kg volume [16]. NEC was defined as per the modified Bells staging.” We don’t use gastric residuals in our unit to guide cessation of feedings anymore but the groups both had residuals treated the same way so that is different but not somethign that I think would invalidate the study. The patients in the study had the baseline characteristics shown below and were comparable. Results It will be little surprise to you that the results indicate no difference in time to full feedings as shown in Figure 2 from the paper. The curves for feeding advancement are essentially superimposed. Feeding every two vs three hours made no difference whatsoever. Looking at secondary outcomes there were no differences as well in rates of NEC or hypoglycemia. Importantly when examining rates of feeding intolerance 7.4% of babies in the 2 hour and 6.9% in the 3 hour groups had this issue with no difference in risk observed. Taking the results as they are from this study there doens’t seem to be much basis for drawing the line at 1250g although it would still be nice to see the preplanned subgroup analysis to see if there were any concerns in the 1000-1250 group. Supporting this study though is a large systematic review by Dr. A. Razak (whom I have collaborated with before). In his systematic review Two-hourly versus three-hourly feeding in very low-birth-weight infants: A systematic review and metaanalysis. he concluded there was no difference in time to full feeds but did note a positive benefit of q3h feeding in the 962 pooled infants with infants fed 3-hourly regainin birth weight earlier than infants fed 2-hourly (3 RCTs; 350 participants; mean difference [95% confidence interval] -1.12 [-2.16 to -0.08]; I2 = 0%; p = 0.04). This new study is a large one and will certainly strengthen the evidence from these smaller pooled studies. Final Thoughts The practice of switching to q2h feedings under 1250g is certainly being challenged. The question will be whether the mental barriers to changing this practice can be broken. There are many people that will read this and think “if it’s not broken don’t fix it” or resist change due to change itself. The evidence that is out there though I would submit should cause us all to think about this aspect of our practice. I will!

Anyone who works in the NICU is more than familiar with the sad moment when you find out an infant has suffered a severe IVH (either grade III or IV) and the disclosure to the family. The family is in a state of shock with the fear of ventricular drainage a reality that will likely come to pass. We have spent many years trying to find ways to reduce this risk and antenatal steroids and delayed cord clamping are two relatively recent interventions that have had a real impact. Unfortunately we have not been able to eliminate this problem though. What if something as simple as an exclusive human milk diet could be that magic bullet to further reduce this problem in our NICUs? Exclusive human milk diets I have written about this topic before but as a refresher this generally refers to all sources of nutrition being derived from human milk. Ideally we would provide mothers own milk (MOM) but when this is not available units rely on pasteurized donor human milk (PDHM) as the base feed. Added to this is human derived human milk fortifier (H2HMF) as opposed to bovine powdered or liquid fortifier usually to provide a base caloric density of 24 cal/oz. Reducing IVH Through Exclusive Human Milk Diets It would be nice to have a prospective multicentre trial with this as the outcome but there is a significant problem when doing this type of study. The H2HMF is costly with a price tag of about $13-15000 per treatment course so to do a prospective RCT would not be easy for units that don’t use the product already. Moreover, for those units that are already sold on the product it would seem unethical if there was no equipoise to randomize to bovine or human fortifier. As such, when we talk about getting the best evidence it is most likely going to come in the form of a retrospective study as has been done here by Carome K et al in their paper Exclusive human milk diet reduces incidence of severe intraventricular hemorrhage in extremely low birth weight infants. The authors in this study chose to look at three different time periods with different approaches to feeding of ELBW infants. They were as follows with all diets providing H2HMF going until 34 weeks. Aside from the source of nutrition, starting of and incremental advancement of feedings was protocolized as per unit approach. 2012 to 2014 – MOM was given when available. Preterm formula was the alternative as a supplement Fortification of was with bovine milk-derived liquid fortifier 2014 to 2015 – H2HMF used in those infants receiving exclusively MOM. All others received preterm formula as supplement or alternative. If MOM was available but in insufficient quantities for sole diet, it was fortified with bovine-HMF 2015 to 2017 – all ELBW infants received an EHM diet consisting of MOM if available and PDHM as a supplement to MOM or as full diet, each fortified with H2HMF The maternal demographics were similar between those receiving exclusive human milk diets and those without except for a higher antenatal steroid provision in the EHM group. This of course bears consideration in the results as steroids have been shown to reduce IVH. Looking at the results below shows some very promising findings. The incidence of Grade III/IV IVH and/or PVL was 7% in the EHM group and 18% in the non-EHM group. Also noted to be quite different was the incidence of NEC which was 5% in the EHM and 17% in the non group. The authors also did a subgroup analysis looking at the use of MOM vs PDHM and found no difference in outcomes regardless of source of human milk used. As the authors point out this might mean that the pasteurization process does not denature the components of milk responsible for these protective effects if the results are to be believed. One strength of the study was that the authors performed a logistic regression to control for the higher rate of antenatal steroid use and lower rates of NEC in the EHM group since both would be expected to influence rates of IVH/PVL and found that the results remained significant after this analysis. The findings were an OR of 2.7 CI 1.2–6.0, p = 0.012 so that is promising! What They Weren’t Able to Do It’s possible I missed it in the article but like several other papers on this topic the babies who received formula and those who received human milk with bovine fortifier were grouped together. As such what we don’t know from this study is whether the addition of just the bovine fortifier vs H2HMF would have yielded the same results. Nonetheless what the article does suggest is that use of EHM diets are protective against severe IVH/PVL regardless of the source of human milk when you compare it to receipt of any bovine sources. The caveats about retrospective studies of course exist as per usual but if this is the best evidence we have how do we use it? At the very least this calls out for strategies to maximize milk production for mothers and to use PDHM when MOM is not available. It certainly is suggestive that the use of H2HMF may confer benefit as well. What you unit does with this information I suppose will need to be determined based on the totality of the evidence. I suspect there is more of this story to be told and this adds yet another chapter in the tale of EHM.

Since the dawn of my time in Neonatology there has been cibophobia! What is this you ask? It is the fear of food and with some flexibility in the definition I would apply this to large volumes of milk rather than the fear of food itself. Most units in the world seem to use a volume range of about 135 – 165 mL/kg/d as a range considered to mean “at full feeds”. As I was discussing this on rounds today I was quick to point out though that babies with neonatal opioid withdrawal syndrome (NOWS) frequently take in excess of 200 mL/kg/d and we don’t worry about it. The counter argument though is that these infants are “bigger” and should be able to tolerate a larger volume. As readers of this blog know I truly enjoy coming across papers that suggest a change to something considered dogma. Today is one of those days as I am choosing to explore in more depth an abstract that I posted to Twitter and Facebook last month. Are Bigger Volumes Better? Travers CP et al chose to challenge this long held practice in their recent paper Higher or Usual Volume Feedings in Very Preterm Infants: A Randomized Clinical Trial. It was a simple yet wonderful trial that asked the question of whether for infants < 32 weeks GA at birth with BW from 1000-2500g would higher volume feedings of 180-200 vs 140-160 ml/kg/d help increase growth velocity. Randomization occurred after infants had reached 120 mL/kg/d of oral feedings. In both arms advancements from this point were the same and fortification occurrred as per usual practrice but in each arm strategies targeted individual fortification to weight gain. The authors were seeking a 3 g/kg/d difference in growth and needed 224 infants to demonstrate this difference. They enrolled the same at a mean GA of 30.5 weeks and a BW of 1445 grams. Birth characteristics including gestational age, weight, sex, race/ethnicity, Apgar scores, head circumference, length, and proportion of infants with a weight <10th percentile at birth did not differ between groups. The outcomes showed differences as shown below. Looking at the results All in all I would say the results are a smashing success. Growth velocity was improved and not just in weight but in head circumference and length. What I find interesting is that if fortification of milk was targeted regardless of the volume used I am a bit baffled as to why the growth rate would still be better but it was. The difference in caloric intake received between groups was approximately 9 kcal/kg/day at day 7 after study entry (126 kcal/kg/day versus 117 kcal/kg/day) and 16 kcal/kg/day from day 14 after study entry onwards (139 kcal/kg/day versus 123 kcal/kg/day). Blinding here would have been a challenge as nurses and other health care providers would have been able to calculate the expected volumes at different fluid administration levels. Nonetheless there was a difference. The question though that many would ask is whether this better growth came at the expense of greater morbidity. Let’s be clear here that the study was not powered to look at adverse outcomes and the numbers in the above table are small but no difference was seen nonetheless. To appease the most cautious of Neonatologists I suspect a larger study powered to look at adverse outcomes will be needed. What this study does though is raise the question of whether we can and should try larger volumes. As the title suggests I wonder about getting bigger faster so one can go home. With this more rapid rate of growth can we expect a faster maturation as well? I doubt it but it is something to certainly question in a larger study!

I have reviewed many articles on this site in the last few years. My favourite pieces are ones in which I know the authors and I have to say my ultimate favourite is when I know the authors as colleagues. Such is the case this time around and it pertains to a topic that is not without controversy. Nasal High Frequency Oscillatory Ventilation or NHFOV for short is a form of non-invasive ventilation that claims to be able to prevent reintubation whether used prophylactically (extubation directly to NHFOV) or as a rescue (failing CPAP so use NHFOV instead of intubation). I have written about the topic before in the piece Can Nasal High Frequency Ventilation Prevent Reintubations? but this time around the publication we are looking at is from my own centre! Retrospective Experience One of our former fellows who then worked with us for a period of time Dr. Yaser Ali decided to review our experience with NHFOV in the paper Noninvasive High-Frequency Oscillatory Ventilation: A Retrospective Chart Review. Not only is one of our fellows behind this paper but an additional former fellow and current employee Dr. Ebtihal Ali and two of my wonderful colleagues Dr. Molly Seshia and Dr. Ruben Alvaro who both taught be a few things about this chosen career of mine. The study involved our experience with using this technique (Draeger VN500 providing HFOV through first a RAM cannulae and then later with the FlexiTrunk Midline Interface (FlexiTrunk Midline Interface, Fisher & Paykel Healthcare) either using a prophylactic or rescue approach. The settings were standardized in both approaches as follows. Prophlyactic • Frequency of 6 to 8 Hz. • Mean airway pressure (MAP)2 cmH2Oabove the MAP of invasive ventilation (whether conventional or high-frequency ventilation). • Amplitude to achieve adequate chest oscillation while at rest. Rescue • Frequency of 6 to 8 Hz. • MAP 1 to 2 cm H2O higher than positive end expiratory pressure (PEEP) on CPAP or biphasic CPAP. • Amplitude to achieve adequate chest oscillation while at rest. All in all there were 32 occasions for 27 patients in which prophylaxis was used in 10 and rescue in 22. In the rescue group 77% of the time transfer onto NHFOV was done due to apneic events. The study was retrospective and lacked a control group as such so when it comes to the prophylactic approach it is impossible to know how many of these babies would have done fine with CPAP or Biphasic CPAP. Having said that, in that arm the intervention was successful in keeping babies extubated for at least 72 hours in 6/10. Since I really don’t know if those same babies would have done just as well with CPAP I will stop the discussion about them now. The Rescue Group These infants were on a fair bit of support though prior to going on to HFNOV with a mean SD CPAP of 7.9 cm H2O; while for the biphasic CPAP, the levels were 10.2 cm H2O and 7.7 cm H2O. In the rescue group 73% of the infants did not get intubated. Let’s Process This For A Minute I think most of you would agree that an infant on CPAP of +8 or NIPPV who is having repetitive apnea or significant desaturations would inevitably be intubated. In three quarters of these patients they were not but I can assure you they would have been if we had not implemented this treatment. When you look at the whole cohort including prophylactic and rescue you can see that the only real difference in the babies were that the ones who were on lower MAP before going onto NHFOV were more likely to fail. Interestingly, looking at the effect on apnea frequency there was a very significant reduction in events with NHFOV while FiO2 trended lower (possibly due to the higher MAP that is typically used by 1-2 cm H2O) and pCO2 remained the same. If pCO2 is no different how does this treatment work if the results are to be believed? Although high frequency ventilation is known for working well to clear CO2 I don’t think when given via this nasal interface it does much in that regard. It may be that the oscillations mostly die out in the nasopharynx. I have often wondered though if the agitation and higher mean airway pressures are responsible compared to straight CPAP or biphasic CPAP alone. There is something going on though as it is hard to argue with the results in our centre that in those who would have been otherwise intubated they avoided this outcome. You could argue I suppose since the study was not blinded that we were willing to ride it out if we believe that NHFOV is superior and will save the day but the information in Table 3 suggests that the babies on this modality truly had a reduction in apnea and I suspect had the sample size been larger we would have seen a reduction that was significant in FiO2. My thoughts on this therefore is that while I can’t profess that a prophylactic approach after extubation would be any better than going straight to CPAP, I do wonder if NHFOV is something that we should have in our toolkits to deal with the baby who seems to need reintubation due to rising FiO2 and/or apnea frequency. What may need to be looked at prospectively though is a comparison between higher pressures using CPAP and NHFOV. If you were to use CPAP pressures of +10, +11 or +12 and reach equivalent pressures to NHFOV would these advantages disappear?

The Canadian Pediatric Society has a statement on the use of premedication before non-emergent intubation which was written in 2011 and reaffirmed in 2018. After reviewing available medications for use the recommended strategy was atropine, fentanyl and succinylcholine. This combination does involve three different medications, the first being to prevent bradycardia, the second to sedate and the third to paralyze. With the use of three medications however there is always room for error so it is very alluring to try and use one medication to provide optimal conditions for intubation. As a matter of fact I once tried thiopental as a single agent as a fellow (unpublished) which never saw the light of day due to difficulties with recruitment. Nonetheless I was after a simpler solution to providing good conditions for intubation so it is not surprising that others are also looking at single agents as well. Propofol Would Seem Like a Good Contender Propofol has been used in the adult and Pediatric world for some time. It causes a decreased level of conciousness and amnesia surrounding the events for which it was given. It is short acting often wearing off within minutes which would seem perfect for procedural sedation. On the downside one of its side effects is hypotension so in a fragile neonate this might be something to be watch for. Dose finding study de Kort et al published Propofol for endotracheal intubation in neonates: a dose-finding trial this month. It is an interesting study design for those unfamiliar with dose finding studies. The goal was to begin with a low but starting dose for propofol at 1 mg/kg/dose and escalate by 0.5 mg/kg/dose until adequate sedation was reached WITHOUT signficant adverse side effects. Moreover the authors built on previous work in this area to attempt to break the patients into 8 groups as shown in this figure. All patients were less than 28 days so allocation was based on gestational age and whether a patient was greater or less than 10 days of age at dosing. Level of intubation readiness was evaluated using a standardized tool called the Intubation Readiness Score. Side effects were hypotension, myoclonus, chest wall rigidity, persistent respiratory and/or circulatory failure and bronchospasm. Blood pressure was assessed via an indwelling catheter if available or by cuff if not available. Importantly any mean blood pressure after provision of propofol less than the gestational age met the criteria for declaring hypotension. The Findings The study was terminated early due to low inclusion in some groups after 91 total patients had been enrolled. In the end there were only enough patients in Groups 3 (26 – 29 weeks and <10 days) and 5 (30 – 36 weeks and < 10 days) enrolled to analyze fully. The results of the dose finding analysis are shown below. Walking through group 3, there were 5 patients enrolled at the 1 mg/kg level and based on poor levels of sedation in all the dosing for next 5 were increased to 1.5 mg/kg. As intubating conditions improved, the authors found that at a dose of 2 mg/kg while conditions were optimal, hypotension became a significant problem with 59% being hypotensive. The management of hypotension included 54% needing volume resuscitation and inotropes in 10%. Curiously the hypotension often did not appear until 2 hours or more after drug delivery. When the authors did a step down to 1.75 mg/kg as a intubation dose they found it was inadequate for providing good conditions for intubation albeit with less hypotension. Not the right drug The goal of this study was to find the optimal dose that provided good intubation conditions without significant side effects. The strength of this study was that it included babies across a wide range of gestational ages from 26+0 to 36+6 weeks gestational age. While the authors were unable to recruit enough patients to fill each group the stoppage of the study made sense as it was clear that the goal of the study would not be met. Propofol would be a great single agent if it weren’t for the issues found in this study. This is not to say that the drug is a poor choice for Pediatrics but in the Neonatal world I just don’t think it has a place. I would welcome further testing on other single agent drugs but that of course is an analysis for another post!

Let me start off by giving thanks to John Minski for this article and in fact for many others that have been reviewed on this blog. John is a registered respiratory therapist in Winnipeg with a passion for respiratory care like no other. John frequently sends articles my way to think about for our unit and this one was quite sensational to me. As readers of this blog I thought you might find it pretty interesting as well. Why Would A Mask Cause Apnea To begin with this seems counterintuitive as don’t we use masks when babies are apneic to help them breathe? While this is true and they are great for support, what if a baby is breathing already but has laboured respirations and you choose to apply a mask and provide PEEP to support their breathing efforts. Surprisingly there is evidence that this may induce apnea. The evidence comes from studies in term infants and one such study to demonstrate this finding was Effects of a face mask and pneumotachograph on breathing in sleeping infants by Dolfin T et al. While tidal volumes improved with facemask application, respiratory frequency after mask application dropped by 6 breaths a minute. This may have been offset by a rise in tidal volume as minute ventilation was unchanged. Regardless there was a slowing of the respiratory rate which was found in other studies as well. The cause of this slowing has been attributed to the Trigemiocardiac Reflex (TCR). The trigeminal nerve branches all pass through the area around the mouth and nose as shown in this figure. Applying the mask can cover these nerves and as they become compressed, This can trigger the TCR leading to apnea & reductions in HR and blood pressure (in the case of V1). What About In Preterm Infants? Preterm infants are a good group to study this phenomenon in as they as a group are more apt to need respiratory support after birth and have increased tendency towards apena and bradycardia compared to their term counterparts. That is what was done in a retrospective fashion by researchers from the Czech Republic who restarted research that largely occured in the early 1980s on the TCR so congratulations to them for digging this up and deciding to look at this in preterm infants. The Study Kypers KL et al published The effect of a face mask for respiratory support on breathing in preterm infants at birth in Resuscitation in late 2019. The study retrospecitively looked at the immediate delivery room outcomes for 429 infants (median (IQR) gestational age of 28+6 (27+1-30+4) weeks and divided them into those born who breathed but needed respiratory support with a mask and those who were apneic at birth. As shown in the above table of the 368 babies who showed signs of breathing but had a facemask applied to provide either PEEP or anticipate the need for PPV about half stopped breathing after facemask application. In the figure below it is worth noting that the median time for this to happen was only 5 seconds and the duration of apnea was almost half a minute with 80% of these babies needing PPV to come out of it. Of those who continued breathing there were marked differences in timing of respiratory support and whether sustained inflations were employed. You were also more likely to intubate the infant if they had stopped breathing. Lastly, there was an inverse correlation seen between gestational age and likelihood of apnea after facemask application of 1.424 (1.281 – 1.583 95% CI) What are the implications here? The TCR appears to happen in preterm infants when you apply a mask to support respiration more commonly than at term and the risk increases as GA decreases. This is not a good combination as it means that those that are at increasing risk of lung injury from positive pressure ventilation may be at higher risk of going apneic soley from placement of a mask over the mouth and nose. Yet this has been a staple of neonatal resuscitation for as long as I and I suspect almost anyone can remember. What I think this really begs for is a follow-up study on the use of nasal prongs placed in the nares to provide CPAP right after delivery. This approach is what we in our centre strive to do anyway but there are many centres I suspect that still employ the mask and bag to provide CPAP either through a PEEP valve or manually compressing the exit flow end of the anaesthesia bag. If compression of the tissues around the mouth and nose could be averted, could the TCR be avoided as well with the use of prongs in this fashion. If a patient goes apneic after a mask is placed over the mouth and nose and then goes on to require PPV with provision of large tidal volumes to a 26 week infants lungs the damage is likely done and the die cast that this infant will develop enough lung injury to potentially be labelled as having BPD down the road. I would like to thank the authors again for picking up on research that is over 35 years old and sparking new life into this area of Neonatology!

In recent years we have moved away from measuring and reporting gastric residuals. Checking volumes and making decisions about whether to continue feeding or not just hasn’t been shown to make any difference to care. If anything it prolongs time to full feeds without any demonstrable benefits in reduction of NEC. This was shown in the last few years by Riskin et al in their paper The Impact of Routine Evaluation of Gastric Residual Volumes on the Time to Achieve Full Enteral Feeding in Preterm Infants. Nonetheless, I doubt there is a unit in the world that has not had the following situation happen. It is 2 AM and the fellow on call is notified that they need to come and see a patient. On arrival the bedside nurse shows them a syringe that contains dark green murky fluid. The fellow is told that NG tube placement was just being checked and this is what was aspirated. The infant is fine in terms of exam but the question is asked “What should I do with this fluid”. The decision is made that the fluid looks “gross” and they discard it and then decide to resume feedings with a fresh batch of milk. Both parties feel good about discarding what looked totally unappealing for anyone to ingest and the night goes on. If this sounds familiar it should as I suspect this happens frequently. Logical Fallacy A colleague of mine introduced me to this concept and I think it may apply here. Purdue University’s writing lab defines a Logical Fallacy in this way “Fallacies are common errors in reasoning that will undermine the logic of your argument. Fallacies can be either illegitimate arguments or irrelevant points, and are often identified because they lack evidence that supports their claim.” I think we may have one here that has pervaded Neonatology across the globe. Imbedded in the fallacy is the notion that because the dark green aspirates look gross and we often see such coloured aspirates in patients with necrotizing enterocolitis or other bowel disease, all green aspirates must be bad for you. The second fallacy is that the darker the aspirate the more seriously you should consider discarding it. This may surprise you but on their own there isn’t much of anything that has been shown to be wrong with them. Looking for evidence to demonstrate increased rates of NEC or other abdominal issues in an otherwise well patient finds pretty much nothing to support discarding. A challenge to discarding Athalye-Jape G et al published Composition of Coloured Gastric Residuals in Extremely Preterm Infants-A Nested Prospective Observational Study. The study was a nested one in that questions about gastric residuals were taken from two studies on the use of probiotics. As with other studies on the use of probiotics there were some benefits seen as shown in Table 2 but that is not the main reason for sharing this study with you. The main reason for the share of this paper is what is in Table 3. Although not significantly different the mean estimates for concentration of bile acids in the pale and dark green aspirates came close to being different. Other nutritional content such as fat, protein and carbohydrate were no different. As the bile became darker though the bile acids tended to increase. It is this point that is worthy of discussion. A Breakdown of the Aspirate I’m with you. When you look at that murky dark green fluid in the syringe it just seems wrong to put that back into a belly. Would you want to eat that? Absolutely not but when you break it down into what is in there, suddenly it doesn’t seem so bad. We assume that we would not want to refeed such putrid looking material and that is where the logical fallacy exists. What evidence do we have that refeeding that fluid is bad? As I said above not much at all. Looking at the fact that there is actual nutritional calories in that fluid and bile acids as well you come to realize that throwing it away may truly not be in the best interest of the baby. Calories may wind up in the garbage and along with them, bile acids. Bile acids are quite important in digestion as they help us digest fat and moreover as they enter the ileum they are reabsorbed in large quantities which go to further help digestion. In addition bile acid concentrations are what helps draw fluid into bile and promotes bile flow. By throwing these bile acids out we could see lower bile volumes and possible malabsorption from insufficient emulsification of fat. The other unmeasured factors in this fluid are the local hormones produced in the bowel such as motilin which helps with small bowel contractility. Loss of this hormone might lead to impairment of peristalsis which can lead to other problems such as bacterial overgrowth and malabsorption. Now all of this is speculative I will admit and to throw out one dark green aspirate is not going to lead to much harm I would think. What if this was systematic though over 24 or 48 hours that such aspirates were being found and discarded. Might be something there, What I do think the finding of such aspirates should trigger however is a thorough examination of the patient as dark green aspirates can be found in serious conditions such as NEC or bowel perforation. In the presence of a normal examination with or without laboratory investigations what I take from this study is that we should question are tendency to find and discard. Maybe the time has come to replace such fear with a practice of closing our eyes and putting that dark green aspirate right back where it came from.

If you work in Neonatology you no doubt have listened to people talk in rounds or at other educational sessions about the importance of opening the lung. Many units in the past were what you might call “peepaphobic” but over time and with improvements in technology many centers are adopting an attitude that you use enough PEEP to open the lung. There are some caveats to this of course such as there being upper limits to what units are comfortable and not just relying on PEEP but adding in surfactant when necessary to improve pulmonary compliance. When we think about giving nitric oxide the importance of opening the lung can’t be stressed enough. I have heard it said many times when a baby has been found to be a “non responder” to inhaled nitric oxide that they may have been so because the lung wasn’t open. What we mean by this is that the distal alveoli are open. One can administer all the iNO in the world but if the majority of alveoli are collapsed the drug can’t get to the pulmonary vasculature and cause the pulmonary vasodilation that is so sorely needed in the presence of hypoxemic respiratory failure. Surfactant and inhaled nitric oxide in the presence of hypoxemic respiratory failure could be a great combo as one would help open the alveoli and then the iNO could address any pulmonary vasoconstriction which might be exacerbating the hypoxemic state. Study Tests This Theory Researchers in Chile led by Gonzalez A published Early use of combined exogenous surfactant and inhaled nitric oxide reduces treatment failure in persistent pulmonary hypertension of the newborn: a randomized controlled trial in the Journal of Perinatology. The concept of this study was to compare in a double blind RCT for 100 patients (based on a power calculation looking for a 25% reduction in treatment failure) whether provision of surfactant as up to 2 doses and iNO would be better than just iNO alone. Included infants needed an oxygenation index (OI = MAPXFiO2/pO2) of 20 or more to qualify and treatment failure was an OI of 40 or more. The patients recruited were similar in common characteristics including types of conditions that would benefit from iNO. RDS, meconium aspiration syndrome and pneumonia certainly have been shown to benefit from surfactant before while in the PPHN category that is questionable. In order to ensure that it was not just the primary disease but pulmonary hypertension that was present as well, all patients required confirmation of pulmonary hypertension prior to enrollment via ECHO with either a TR jet indicating a pulmonary pressure at least 2/3 of systemic or right to left shunting at the ductal or atrial level. The results of the study demonstrated a clear difference in the primary outcome. Patients receiving the combination of surfactant prior to starting iNO showed a faster reduction in OI than those receiving iNO alone. In fact the reduction in primary outcome of treatment failure was over 50% different while the power calculation had been based on only a 25% difference. That’s ok as this means there were more than enough patients to demonstrate a difference. As a secondary outcome the rate of ECMO or death was also different between the groups favouring use of surfactant. It works so now what? Who doesn’t like seeing a study that confirms what you have long believed. I feel that this study validates the teaching I received throughout the years about ensuring the lung is open before giving iNO. There are some caveats to this however. About 90% of the patients studied had conditions present (RDS, MAS, pneumonia) for which surfactant would have been indicated anyway. If this study had been done let’s say in patients with asphyxia induced pulmonary hypertension and clear lungs the surfactant may have made no difference as the lungs were already open. I mention this as I don’t think readers of this analysis need to jump to the conclusion that every time there is a patient with PPHN that you MUST give surfactant. What I think this illustrates though is the importance of first asking the question if iNO is being considered “Have I opened the lungs?”. The next time you encounter such a patient consider whether you are using enough PEEP and whether surfactant is indicated. The bottom line is if the lung isn’t open then all the iNO in the world isn’t going to make much difference!

It seems so simple doesn’t it. Shouldn’t we just be able to feed milk whether it be from humans or cows and our preemies will just adapt? I have often written about human milk diets vs those with bovine but this week an intriguing article came my way that really gave me some pause to say hmmm. Human milk diets have been shown to reduce the risk of necrotizing enterocolitis (NEC) compared to use of formula. The use of bovine human milk fortifiers falls somewhere in the middle I suppose as the diet in that case is mostly human milk with some bovine sprinkled in so to speak. If NEC is something that these infants are at increased risk of then what might be going at a tissue level when infants are exposed to human milk alone vs other bovine ingestions? Near Infrared Spectroscopy May Tell Us the Answer Dani C et from Italy just published an elegant study entitled EFFECT ON SPLANCHNIC OXYGENATION OF BREAST MILK, FORTIFIED BREASTMILK, AND FORMULA MILK IN PRETERM INFANTS. The study looked at the use of two particular measurements from regional splanchnic NIRS application. One is called splanchnic regional oxygenation (rSO2S) and the other splanchnic fractional oxygen extraction ratio (FOES). The rSO2S tells you how much oxygen is in the gut at a tissue level and FOES which is calculated by using systemic oxygenation (SpO2) using the formula (SpO2-rSO2S)/SpO2). So FOES will be high when rSO2S is low meaning the gut relative to the rest of the body is consuming more oxygen. For this study, increments in feedings were standardized for all infants. The study was done once patients were on full bolus feedings for one week. The authors designed a study that needed 15 infants in three different groups with the first being human milk, then human milk + bovine fortifier and then the last formula fed infants. NIRS data was recorded 30 minutes before a feed (T0), 30 minutes after a bolus feed (T1) and then 2 hours after a bolus feed (T2). In the end the authors recruited 18 per arm. What the authors found is what I am having trouble not running with in terms of its meaning. Looking at the data, babies who were fed exclusively mothers own milk experienced no change at all in rSO2S at any time points. Interestingly the value even trended higher after a feed. Infants who received fortified human milk experienced a decrease in this value from before the feed to 30 minutes afterwards but then recovered by 2 hours. Formula fed infants though simply dropped from exposure to formula after 30 minutes through 2 hours and the FOES rose over that time demonstrating a greater amount of oxygen extraction by the gut. What is the meaning of all this? Bovine sources of nutrition in the form of fortifier seem to cause the gut to become more metabolically active and consume more oxygen at least for the first 30 minutes after a feeding. Formula tends to have a progressive increase in oxygen extraction over the first two hours post feed. This may be reflective of stress in the gut as it works harder to absorb and process nutrients from a bovine source and perhaps in a dose response fashion, a little bovine content as in fortifier causes some short term increase in oxygen demand vs pure bovine formula causing a sustained increase in oxygen need. This situation sets up an interesting concept. The NIRS results if you recall are from babies who have reached full feeds for one week. What if these same studies had been done in babies who were just in the process of increasing feeds? If infants consuming bovine sources of nutrition need more oxygen in the gut, might this explain why in the presence of acidosis, congenital heart defects or even with a PDA causing changes in end diastolic flow that they don’t tolerate in many cases anything other than human milk? I am not aware of any such studies looking at feeding advancement but it does really make me wonder what we would see as we advance feedings using our protocols? It is tempting to place abdominal NIRS sensors on the bellies of preterm infants who are just starting out on HMF and see what happens? If the rSO2S was going down and/or the FOES was rising, would you stop the bovine fortification if it reached a certain point? What would happen if a human milk fortifier was used instead of a bovine source? Any difference? So many questions and in my mind a great area for research. I can’t wait to see where this all goes.