BACKGROUND: Each year approximately 10 million babies do not breathe immediately at birth, of which about 6 million require basic neonatal resuscitation. The major burden is in low-income settings, where health system capacity to provide neonatal resuscitation is inadequate. OBJECTIVE: To systematically review the evidence for neonatal resuscitation content, training and competency, equipment and supplies, cost, and key program considerations, specifically for resource-constrained settings. RESULTS: Evidence from several observational studies shows that facility-based basic neonatal resuscitation may avert 30% of intrapartum-related neonatal deaths. Very few babies require advanced resuscitation (endotracheal intubation and drugs) and these newborns may not survive without ongoing ventilation; hence, advanced neonatal resuscitation is not a priority in settings without neonatal intensive care. Of the 60 million nonfacility births, most do not have access to resuscitation. Several trials have shown that a range of community health workers can perform neonatal resuscitation with an estimated effect of a 20% reduction in intrapartum-related neonatal deaths, based on expert opinion. Case studies illustrate key considerations for scale up. CONCLUSION: Basic resuscitation would substantially reduce intrapartum-related neonatal deaths. Where births occur in facilities, it is a priority to ensure that all birth attendants are competent in resuscitation. Strategies to address the gap for home births are urgently required. More data are required to determine the impact of neonatal resuscitation, particularly on long-term outcomes in low-income settings.
BACKGROUND: Each year approximately 10 million babies do not breathe immediately at birth, of which about 6 million require basic neonatal resuscitation. The major burden is in low-income settings, where health system capacity to provide neonatal resuscitation is inadequate. OBJECTIVE: To systematically review the evidence for neonatal resuscitation content, training and competency, equipment and supplies, cost, and key program considerations, specifically for resource-constrained settings. RESULTS: Evidence from several observational studies shows that facility-based basic neonatal resuscitation may avert 30% of intrapartum-related neonatal deaths. Very few babies require advanced resuscitation (endotracheal intubation and drugs) and these newborns may not survive without ongoing ventilation; hence, advanced neonatal resuscitation is not a priority in settings without neonatal intensive care. Of the 60 million nonfacility births, most do not have access to resuscitation. Several trials have shown that a range of community health workers can perform neonatal resuscitation with an estimated effect of a 20% reduction in intrapartum-related neonatal deaths, based on expert opinion. Case studies illustrate key considerations for scale up. CONCLUSION: Basic resuscitation would substantially reduce intrapartum-related neonatal deaths. Where births occur in facilities, it is a priority to ensure that all birth attendants are competent in resuscitation. Strategies to address the gap for home births are urgently required. More data are required to determine the impact of neonatal resuscitation, particularly on long-term outcomes in low-income settings.
Authors: S P Miller; J Weiss; A Barnwell; D M Ferriero; B Latal-Hajnal; A Ferrer-Rogers; N Newton; J C Partridge; D V Glidden; D B Vigneron; A J Barkovich Journal: Neurology Date: 2002-02-26 Impact factor: 9.910
Authors: Dennis Azzopardi; Peter Brocklehurst; David Edwards; Henry Halliday; Malcolm Levene; Marianne Thoresen; Andrew Whitelaw Journal: BMC Pediatr Date: 2008-04-30 Impact factor: 2.125
Authors: Gary L Darmstadt; Anne C C Lee; Simon Cousens; Lynn Sibley; Zulfiqar A Bhutta; France Donnay; Dave Osrin; Abhay Bang; Vishwajeet Kumar; Steven N Wall; Abdullah Baqui; Joy E Lawn Journal: Int J Gynaecol Obstet Date: 2009-10 Impact factor: 3.561
Authors: Christopher J Gill; Nicholas G Guerina; Charity Mulenga; Anna B Knapp; Grace Mazala; Davidson H Hamer Journal: Int J Gynaecol Obstet Date: 2012-04-27 Impact factor: 3.561
Authors: Jan L Wallander; Carla Bann; Elwyn Chomba; Shivaprasad S Goudar; Omrana Pasha; Fred J Biasini; Elizabeth M McClure; Vanessa Thorsten; Dennis Wallace; Waldemar A Carlo Journal: Early Hum Dev Date: 2014-05-09 Impact factor: 2.079
Authors: Gary L Darmstadt; Yoonjoung Choi; Shams E Arifeen; Sanwarul Bari; Syed M Rahman; Ishtiaq Mannan; Habibur Rahman Seraji; Peter J Winch; Samir K Saha; A S M Nawshad Uddin Ahmed; Saifuddin Ahmed; Nazma Begum; Anne C C Lee; Robert E Black; Mathuram Santosham; Derrick Crook; Abdullah H Baqui Journal: PLoS One Date: 2010-03-24 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Ingrid K Friberg; Mary V Kinney; Joy E Lawn; Kate J Kerber; M Oladoyin Odubanjo; Anne-Marie Bergh; Neff Walker; Eva Weissman; Mickey Chopra; Robert E Black; Henrik Axelson; Barney Cohen; Hoosen Coovadia; Roseanne Diab; Francis Nkrumah Journal: PLoS Med Date: 2010-06-21 Impact factor: 11.069
Authors: Janneke Dekker; Stuart B Hooper; Jeroen J van Vonderen; Ruben S G M Witlox; Enrico Lopriore; Arjan B Te Pas Journal: Pediatr Res Date: 2017-05-17 Impact factor: 3.756