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 . 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 . 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.
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.
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!
Private room vs open bay for the NICU. Can always get a quote from a parent saying it is great but….? At what cost? Impact on staff? Is parent time in those NICUs greater now? Other alternatives?
Included in the post was an article discussing the benefits of such a design. Below I will look at the benefits and risks and conclude with an answer to his last question.
The NICUs of the 1970s through late 1990s have been described as “barn like” or “open concept” but in recent years the belief that single patient rooms (SPR) would offer greater benefit to infants led to the adoption of such a unit design across North America. The imagined benefits would be related to improved parent comfort, creating a desire for families to spend more time with their children. As we move to a “family centred” approach to care, a key goal of all units should be to make their families as comfortable and stress free as possible in order to have a positive experience.
Detractors meanwhile, speak of concern regarding isolation of such infants when families do not visit and moreover a risk that such infants deprived of sensory experience will have impaired development. Last year a paper was published that did not help quell such fears; Alterations in Brain Structure and Neurodevelopmental Outcome in Preterm Infants Hospitalized in Different Neonatal Intensive Care Unit Environments (full article in link). This study which compared infants cared for in SPR to an open unit (the hospital in this study had a mixture of both in their NICU) found a worrisome finding at 2 year follow-up in that the infants in SPR had lower scores on language and a trend towards lower motor scores as well. Additionally, partly explaining such findings may have been differences noted at term equivalent age in both the structure and activity of the children’s brains compared to those cared for in an open environment. We were starting construction on a new NICU at the time this paper was published and I can tell you the findings sent shockwaves through our hospital as many wondered whether this was the right decision.
Devil Is in The Details
Looking further into this study, the urban population bore little resemblance to our own. In our hospital all women are taught how to perform skin to skin care and the majority of our mothers spend a great deal of time with their infants. To see how successful have a look at our recent Kangaroo Care drive results! The families in this study however the average hours per week of parent visitation over the length of stay ranged from 1.8-104 hours with a mean of 19+/- 19 hours. The average number of days held per week over the length of stay was 0-6 days with a mean of 2.4 +/-1.5 days. The average number of days held skin-to-skin over the length of stay ranged from 0-4 days, with a mean of 0.7 +/- 0.9 days. In short they were hardly there.
Statistically significant results (all Ps ≤.05) showed that infants in the SPR NICU weighed more at discharge, had a greater rate of weight gain, required fewer medical procedures, had a lower gestational age at full enteral feed and less sepsis, showed better attention, less physiologic stress, less hypertonicity, less lethargy, and less pain.Nurses reported a more positive work environment and attitudes in the SPR NICU.
This study in fact demonstrated greater maternal involvement in a SPR with improvement in outcomes across the board. It would seem then that in a SPR environment, provided there is enough family visitation and involvement this model truly is superior to the open concept. Furthermore despite concerns by some nurses that the loss of line of sight to their patients will make for a more stressful working environment this does not seem to be the case.
What About Families Who Cannot or Simply Aren’t Visiting Frequently?
The reality is that there are many reasons for parents to be absent for long periods during their newborns stay. Having a home outside of the city with other children to care for, work obligations, or loss of custody and abandonment due to apprehension are just some of these reasons. In our hospital, at least 15-20% of all patients admitted are from outside Winnipeg. The evidence as I see it supports the move to a SPR but what do we do for those children who need more visitation? The solution is a cuddler program. In our new hospital we are grateful for the generosity of our Children’s Hospital Foundation who secured a donor to pay for a coordinator of such a program. The veteran parent who is leading this program ensures that no infant goes beyond a set period of time without feeling the touch or hearing the sound of a voice. Such a program is in fact already in place at our other tertiary hospital and was featured in a lovely article attached here. Taking all the information together that is out there I think that if we can provide the necessary stimulation from both touch and auditory stimuli as well we can provide these infants with the developmental needs that each of them requires.
The SPR is the right design in my mind for families with many benefits that spring forth in such an environment. This need not be a win-lose scenario for your hospital. Do not underestimate the power of a cuddler and don’t hesitate to seek support to initiate such a program. It could mean the difference from going from good to great!
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!
Intubate-Surfactant- Extubate or INSURE has been around for awhile. The concept is to place an ETT while an infant is first on CPAP and then after pushing surfactant in quickly remove the ETT and put back on CPAP. This does not always go as planned though. If after surfactant the FiO2 remains above 30% many people would keep the ETT in place as they would surmise that the infant would fail if the tube was removed. They would probably be right.
Sustained inflations have fallen out of favour ever since the SAIL trial results were published and written about here . Having said that, the concept of using sustained inflation is to open the lung and expand closed alveoli to improve both oxygenation and gas exchange. Much like giving inhale nitric oxide to a collapsed lung is unlikely to make much difference, the question could be asked whether giving surfactant to a lung that is most collapsed will fail to deliver this compliance improving medication to the areas of the lung that most sorely need it. Our Italian colleagues therefore decided to undertake a study to look at providing surfactant to lungs after a recruitment manouver and see if this made a difference to the meaningful outcome of extubation failure after surfactant provision. The results are intriguing and as such here we go in looking at the study.
Optimizing Lung Expansion
The trial is the Lung recruitment before surfactant administration in extremely preterm neonates with respiratory distress syndrome (IN-REC-SUR-E): a randomised, unblinded, controlled trial and involved 35 NICUs in Italy. All infants enrolled were born from 24 + 0 weeks to 27 6/7 weeks gestational age at birth and all < 24 hours of age at enrollment. Each baby had to be on CPAP at the time of randomization and meet prespecified failure criteria of FiO2 of 0·30 or greater for target SpO2 of 87% to 94% for at least 30 min or in 10 Infants for rapid deterioration of clinical status or if pCO2 was > 65 mm Hg with a pH less than 7·20. Regardless of which arm they were randomized to all infants received 1-2 sustained inflation breaths using 25 cm H2O for 10-15 secs using a t-piece resuscitator after being started on CPAP as was the practice at the time. After randomization which could not be blinded, patients were then either given surfactant via INSURE without any further strategy for opening the lung or received the IN-REC-SUR-E approach. The latter involved putting the infant on high frequency oscillation starting with settings of mean airway pressure 8 cm H2O; frequency 15 Hz; ΔP15 cm H2O; and inspiration to expiration ratio of 1:2. Using this modality infants underwent stepwise recruitment methods prior to administering surfactant (poractant). The primary outome was the need for mechanical ventilation within the first 72 h of life. Infants met the primary outcome if they were not extubated within 30 min after surfactant administration or required reintubation before 72 h of life.
Based on a power calculation the authors needed 103 infants in each arm and they recruited 107 in the treatment and 111 in the control arm. In the per-protcol allocation 101 received the treatment and 111 the contol. While the strategies for extubation were not set out to be equal (units were allowed to extubate to anywhere from +6 to +8 for pressure levels), the groups were not different 7·0 cm H2O, SD 0·4 for the experimental group and control arms. Given the steps taken to open the lung in the lung recruitment arm, the FiO2 was lower at 28% prior to surfactant provision in the treatment group than in the usual INSURE approach at 42% prior to surfactant provision. All infants were extubated within 30 minutes of receiving surfactant. As the results demonstrate, whether there was an intention to treat analysis or per-protocol analysis the babies who received the intervention were more likely to remain extubated. The number needed to treat was 7 which is a pretty powerful measure. Interestingly, looking at secondary outcomes there are some interesting trends as well including less mortality which on a per-protocol analysis was significant but also a trend towards more PVL at 9% in the treatment arm and 4% in the control. The mean times to surfactant administration were 4 hours in the treatment group and 3 hours in the control but the high frequency manoeuvre had a mean duration of only 30 minutes. It is possible that the use of high frequency could have blown off CO2 to very low levels but I am uncertain if the short reduction in pCO2 could have contributed significantly to reduced cerebral perfusion if that trend is representative of something. Interestingly, pneumothroaces were not different between groups as no doubt as a reader you might wonder if use of high pressures to recruit the lungs when they are non compliant might have led to air leaks.
So it worked, now what?
First of all, the results to me make a lot of sense. Opening the lung before delivering surfactant and then seeing better chances of staying extubated doesn’t really surprise me. Some questions that come up now for me would be how this strategy would fare in those who are older at birth. I suspect given the greater chest wall support and lower likelihood of severe RDS this strategy might be even more effective at reducing FiO2 or perhaps CPAP need in terms of duration after extubation. I would think it unlikely to make a difference in reintubation though as most would remain extubated regardless. That is for another study though with a different outcome.
There will be centres that don’t like the use of HFOV for recruitment so what other strategies could be used in lieu of this? I hate to say it but there will also be calls to have a much larger study specifically designed to look at the secondary outcomes. Would a larger study find a significant increase in PVL or demonstrate that it was just a random finding? Might mortality be proven to be lower and even more so?
Regardless of the above what I think this paper does is give us reason to pause before giving INSURE and ask ourselves if we have done what we can to open the lung after intubating before rushing to squirt the surfactant in. Maybe increasing the provided PEEP and lowering the FiO2 somewhat before giving surfactant will help with distribution and increase your chances of first being able to extubate and secondly when you do keeping the tube out!
If you have a baby in the NICU there is a pretty good chance there will be at least one piece of plastic inserted into your child at some point. We have all sorts of “lines” and tubes that may be present depending on the conditions your baby develops. What follows is a primer on what they are all for.
I thought I would start with the easiest one since when you gave birth the team delivering you put one in you as well. The IV in the neonate is typically put in a hand or foot rather than the crease at the elbow as we like to save the bigger veins for something that we will talk about later on. Typically the IV provides sugar water (D10 most typically which is 10% sugar in water) to provide your baby with enough sugar to satisfy their metabolic needs. If a baby is older at birth but has difficulty breathing, having this type of access allows us to give them sugar and energy while not feeding them and letting their breathing settle. Putting food in the belly may sound like a necessity but they will be fine for awhile on dextrose which will allow their breathing to settle without having a full stomach pushing up on their diaphragm.
These come in two forms; the umbilical venous and arterial catheters. The easiest way to think of these are as long IVs like the one you may have had in your hand during delivery. These are long and on the venous side allow us to provide nutrition to your child either with sugar water (dextrose) or total parenteral nutrition (TPN). We can also give medications which can be tough on small veins in the hand or feet such as those to help with boosting blood pressure. The arterial catheter on the other hand allows us to monitor your baby’s blood pressure continuously. It also gives us a way of drawing blood when we need to test a number of things such as how your baby is breathing (an art gas) or checking their biochemistry such as when you hear us order “lytes” which checks salt and water balances in the body. By the way, putting these lines in does not hurt as there are no nerve endings in the umbilical cord.
These plastic tubes go from the nose (or mouth if it is an orogastric tube) into the stomach. When your baby is too preterm to know how to suck, swallow and breathe without inhaling their food it is safest to provide their milk through one of these tubes. They are very common!
When your baby is unable to breathe on their own they may need to be put on a ventilator. The ventilator attaches to an endotracheal tube and helps your baby get oxygen in and carbon dioxide out. These tubes can also be used very briefly to administer surfactant which makes it easier for your baby’s lungs to open and take air in. You may hear the medical team refer to the INSURE approach when using the tube in this way which stands for Intubate, Surfactant, Extubate.
Thankfully these tubes are not needed as much as they used to be. When air gets in between the lung and the chest wall we call that a pneumothorax.
This air can build up and make it very difficult for the underlying lung to open and fill with air. When that happens your baby’s oxygen levels drop and the carbon dioxide rises. These tubes will be put in to drain the air and relieve the pressure. Once they stop “bubbling” the tube will be clamped and then pulled out if no air reaccumulates. You may also see these tubes placed when a baby develops fluid in the same space called a pleural effusion. In that case you are trying to get rid of the fluid rather than air that has found its way in between the lung and the chest wall.