Transition of Extremely Preterm Infants from Birth to Stable Breathing: A Secondary Analysis of the CORSAD Trial.

IF 2.6 3区 医学 Q1 PEDIATRICS
Neonatology Pub Date : 2023-01-01 DOI:10.1159/000528754
Snorri Donaldsson, Elena Palleri, Baldvin Jonsson, Thomas Drevhammar
{"title":"Transition of Extremely Preterm Infants from Birth to Stable Breathing: A Secondary Analysis of the CORSAD Trial.","authors":"Snorri Donaldsson,&nbsp;Elena Palleri,&nbsp;Baldvin Jonsson,&nbsp;Thomas Drevhammar","doi":"10.1159/000528754","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>Exploratory secondary analysis of the CORSAD trial compared a new resuscitation system (rPAP) to the standard T-piece system. This analysis focused on the subgroup of infants who were not intubated in the delivery room. The aim was to compare the use of noninvasive positive pressure ventilation (PPV), oxygen saturation, and Apgar scores for the two resuscitation systems during the 30-min intervention period.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This is secondary analysis of CORSAD trial using data from the intervention period in the delivery room. Infants in the original randomized system groups were divided into intubated and nonintubated groups. For nonintubated breathing infants, we compared demographics, the use of PPV, Apgar scores, and oxygen saturation at 5 and 10 min after birth. Generalized linear models were applied to calculate the risk difference and odds ratio with 95% CI between the two groups.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Among nonintubated infants, the use of PPV repeatedly (defined as PPV with at least 1 min of spontaneous breathing between PPV cycles) was less frequent in the rPAP group (26.8% vs. 43.3%, %RD -16.5, 95% CI [-31.7 to -1.1], p 0.04). The use of PPV after 5 min of age was also less common in the rPAP group (23.2% vs. 38.8%, %RD -15.6, 95% CI [-30.7 to -0.8], p 0.04). There were no statistically significant differences in Apgar scores or oxygen saturation levels between the groups.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>In the CORSAD trial, less PPV was needed to establish stable breathing in extremely preterm infants using the rPAP compared to using the standard T-piece without significant difference in Apgar scores or oxygenation.</p>","PeriodicalId":18924,"journal":{"name":"Neonatology","volume":"120 2","pages":"250-256"},"PeriodicalIF":2.6000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Neonatology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1159/000528754","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PEDIATRICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective: Exploratory secondary analysis of the CORSAD trial compared a new resuscitation system (rPAP) to the standard T-piece system. This analysis focused on the subgroup of infants who were not intubated in the delivery room. The aim was to compare the use of noninvasive positive pressure ventilation (PPV), oxygen saturation, and Apgar scores for the two resuscitation systems during the 30-min intervention period.

Methods: This is secondary analysis of CORSAD trial using data from the intervention period in the delivery room. Infants in the original randomized system groups were divided into intubated and nonintubated groups. For nonintubated breathing infants, we compared demographics, the use of PPV, Apgar scores, and oxygen saturation at 5 and 10 min after birth. Generalized linear models were applied to calculate the risk difference and odds ratio with 95% CI between the two groups.

Results: Among nonintubated infants, the use of PPV repeatedly (defined as PPV with at least 1 min of spontaneous breathing between PPV cycles) was less frequent in the rPAP group (26.8% vs. 43.3%, %RD -16.5, 95% CI [-31.7 to -1.1], p 0.04). The use of PPV after 5 min of age was also less common in the rPAP group (23.2% vs. 38.8%, %RD -15.6, 95% CI [-30.7 to -0.8], p 0.04). There were no statistically significant differences in Apgar scores or oxygen saturation levels between the groups.

Conclusion: In the CORSAD trial, less PPV was needed to establish stable breathing in extremely preterm infants using the rPAP compared to using the standard T-piece without significant difference in Apgar scores or oxygenation.

极度早产儿从出生到稳定呼吸的转变:CORSAD试验的二次分析。
目的:对CORSAD试验进行探索性二次分析,比较一种新的复苏系统(rPAP)与标准t片系统。这个分析集中在没有在产房插管的婴儿亚组。目的是比较两种复苏系统在30分钟干预期间无创正压通气(PPV)、氧饱和度和Apgar评分的使用情况。方法:对CORSAD试验进行二次分析,使用产房干预期的数据。原随机系统组的婴儿分为插管组和非插管组。对于非插管呼吸的婴儿,我们比较了人口统计学、PPV的使用、Apgar评分和出生后5和10分钟的血氧饱和度。应用广义线性模型计算两组间的风险差异和95% CI的优势比。结果:在非插管婴儿中,rPAP组反复使用PPV(定义为PPV周期之间至少有1分钟的自主呼吸)的频率较低(26.8%对43.3%,%RD -16.5, 95% CI[-31.7至-1.1],p 0.04)。在rPAP组中,5分钟后使用PPV的情况也较少(23.2%对38.8%,%RD -15.6, 95% CI[-30.7至-0.8],p 0.04)。两组间Apgar评分和血氧饱和度无统计学差异。结论:在CORSAD试验中,与使用标准t片相比,使用rPAP的极早产儿需要更少的PPV来建立稳定的呼吸,而Apgar评分或氧合无显著差异。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Neonatology
Neonatology 医学-小儿科
CiteScore
0.60
自引率
4.00%
发文量
91
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: This highly respected and frequently cited journal is a prime source of information in the area of fetal and neonatal research. Original papers present research on all aspects of neonatology, fetal medicine and developmental biology. These papers encompass both basic science and clinical research including randomized trials, observational studies and epidemiology. Basic science research covers molecular biology, molecular genetics, physiology, biochemistry and pharmacology in fetal and neonatal life. In addition to the classic features the journal accepts papers for the sections Research Briefings and Sources of Neonatal Medicine (historical pieces). Papers reporting results of animal studies should be based upon hypotheses that relate to developmental processes or disorders in the human fetus or neonate.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信