Peter Raupp1, Charles McCutcheon. 1. Department of Neonatology, Al Corniche Hospital, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates. raupppeter@hotmail.com
Abstract
AIM: To highlight the main differences between the current editions of the Newborn Life Support (NLS; Resuscitation Council, UK) and the Neonatal Resuscitation Program (NRP; American Academy of Pediatrics and American Heart Association), and to analyse differences between the evidence underlying NLS and NRP. MATERIAL AND METHODS: We undertook a detailed comparison of recommendations and references, based on the NLS and the NRP provider course manuals issued in 2006. Literature on neonatal resuscitation, published in 2005 and thereafter, was searched, focusing on controversies between NLS and NRP. RESULTS: A multitude of important differences between NLS and NRP have been reaffirmed in their current editions, leading to conflicting messages regarding many aspects of resuscitation. An incongruent selection of evidence appears to be a major factor accounting for this divergence. CONCLUSION: To avoid confusion among health care providers and to support the credibility of both NLS and NRP, an intensified dialogue and a more congruent evidence base between NRP and NLS is required. Mutual recognition of equivalency appears unrealistic until substantial progress in this direction has been achieved.
AIM: To highlight the main differences between the current editions of the Newborn Life Support (NLS; Resuscitation Council, UK) and the Neonatal Resuscitation Program (NRP; American Academy of Pediatrics and American Heart Association), and to analyse differences between the evidence underlying NLS and NRP. MATERIAL AND METHODS: We undertook a detailed comparison of recommendations and references, based on the NLS and the NRP provider course manuals issued in 2006. Literature on neonatal resuscitation, published in 2005 and thereafter, was searched, focusing on controversies between NLS and NRP. RESULTS: A multitude of important differences between NLS and NRP have been reaffirmed in their current editions, leading to conflicting messages regarding many aspects of resuscitation. An incongruent selection of evidence appears to be a major factor accounting for this divergence. CONCLUSION: To avoid confusion among health care providers and to support the credibility of both NLS and NRP, an intensified dialogue and a more congruent evidence base between NRP and NLS is required. Mutual recognition of equivalency appears unrealistic until substantial progress in this direction has been achieved.