Devices for Administering Ventilation at Birth: A Systematic Review

Author:

Trevisanuto Daniele1,Roehr Charles Christoph23,Davis Peter G.45,Schmölzer Georg M.6,Wyckoff Myra Helen7,Liley Helen G.8,Rabi Yacov9,Weiner Gary Marshall10

Affiliation:

1. Department of Women’s and Children’s Health, University of Padua, Padua, Italy

2. Newborn Services, John Radcliffe Hospital, Oxford University Hospitals, National Health Service Foundation Trust, Oxford, United Kingdom

3. National Perinatal Epidemiology Unit, Nuffield Department of Population Health, Medical Sciences Division, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom

4. Newborn Research Centre and Neonatal Services, The Royal Women’s Hospital, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia

5. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia

6. Division of Neonatology, Department of Pediatrics, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada

7. Division of Neonatal-Perinatal Medicine, Department of Pediatrics, The University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, Texas

8. Mater Research Institute and Mater Clinical Unit, School of Clinical Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia

9. Department of Pediatrics, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada

10. Division of Neonatal-Perinatal Medicine, C.S. Mott Children’s Hospital and University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan

Abstract

CONTEXT Positive pressure ventilation (PPV) is the most important intervention during neonatal resuscitation. OBJECTIVE To compare T-piece resuscitators (TPRs), self-inflating bags (SIBs), and flow-inflating bags for newborns receiving PPV during delivery room resuscitation. DATA SOURCES Medline, Embase, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and trial registries (inception to December 2020). STUDY SELECTION Randomized, quasi-randomized, interrupted time series, controlled before-and-after, and cohort studies were included without language restrictions. DATA EXTRACTION Two researchers independently extracted data, assessed the risk of bias, and evaluated the certainty of evidence. The primary outcome was in-hospital mortality. When appropriate, data were pooled by using fixed-effect models. RESULTS Meta-analysis of 4 randomized controlled trials (1247 patients) revealed no significant difference between TPR and SIB for in-hospital mortality (risk ratio 0.74; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.40 to 1.34). Resuscitation with a TPR resulted in a shorter duration of PPV (mean difference −19.8 seconds; 95% CI −27.7 to −12.0 seconds) and lower risk of bronchopulmonary dysplasia (risk ratio 0.64; 95% CI 0.43 to 0.95; number needed to treat 32). No differences in clinically relevant outcomes were found in 2 randomized controlled trials used to compare SIBs with and without positive end-expiratory pressure valves. No studies used to evaluate flow-inflating bags were found. LIMITATIONS Certainty of evidence was very low or low for most outcomes. CONCLUSIONS Resuscitation with a TPR compared with an SIB reduces the duration of PPV and risk of bronchopulmonary dysplasia. A strong recommendation cannot be made because of the low certainty of evidence. There is insufficient evidence to determine the effectiveness of positive end-expiratory pressure valves when used with SIBs.

Publisher

American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP)

Subject

Pediatrics, Perinatology, and Child Health

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3