Matthias C Hütten1,2, Tom G Goos3,4, Daan Ophelders1, Maria Nikiforou1, Elke Kuypers1, Monique Willems5, Hendrik J Niemarkt1, Jenny Dankelman4, Peter Andriessen1,6, Thilo Mohns6, Irwin K M Reiss3, Boris W Kramer1,5. 1. Department of Pediatrics, Maastricht University Medical Centre, Faculty of Health, Medicine and Life Sciences, School for Mental Health and Neuroscience, Maastricht, The Netherlands. 2. Department of Pediatrics, Neonatology, University Clinic Medical Faculty RWTH Aachen, Aachen, Germany. 3. Department of Pediatrics, Division of Neonatology, Erasmus Medical Centre - Sophia Children's Hospital, Rotterdam, The Netherlands. 4. Department of Biomechanical Engineering, Delft University of Technology, Delft, The Netherlands. 5. Department of Pediatrics, Maastricht University Medical Centre, Faculty of Health, Medicine and Life Sciences, School for Oncology and Developmental Biology, Maastricht, The Netherlands. 6. Department of Pediatrics, Máxima Medical Center, Veldhoven, The Netherlands.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Hyperoxia and hypoxia influence morbidity and mortality of preterm infants. Automated closed-loop control of the fraction of inspired oxygen (FiO(2)) has been shown to facilitate oxygen supplementation in the neonatal intensive care unit (NICU), but has not yet been tested during preterm resuscitation. We hypothesized that fully automated FiO(2) control based on predefined oxygen saturation (SpO(2)) targets was applicable in both preterm resuscitation and ventilation. METHODS: Twenty-two preterm lambs were operatively delivered and intubated in a modified EXIT procedure. They were randomized to receive standardized resuscitation with either automated or manual FiO(2) control, targeting SpO(2) according to the Dawson curve in the first 10 min and SpO(2) 90-95% hereafter. Automated FiO(2) control also was applied during surfactant replacement therapy and subsequent ventilation. RESULTS: Time within target range did not differ significantly between manual and automated FiO(2) control during resuscitation, however automated FiO(2) control significantly avoided hyperoxia. Automated FiO(2) control was feasible during surfactant replacement and kept SpO(2) within target range significantly better than manual control during subsequent ventilation. CONCLUSION: In our model, fully automated FiO(2) control was feasible in rapidly changing physiologic conditions during postnatal resuscitation and prevented hyperoxia. We conclude that closed loop FiO(2) control is a promising tool for the delivery room.
BACKGROUND:Hyperoxia and hypoxia influence morbidity and mortality of preterm infants. Automated closed-loop control of the fraction of inspired oxygen (FiO(2)) has been shown to facilitate oxygen supplementation in the neonatal intensive care unit (NICU), but has not yet been tested during preterm resuscitation. We hypothesized that fully automated FiO(2) control based on predefined oxygen saturation (SpO(2)) targets was applicable in both preterm resuscitation and ventilation. METHODS: Twenty-two preterm lambs were operatively delivered and intubated in a modified EXIT procedure. They were randomized to receive standardized resuscitation with either automated or manual FiO(2) control, targeting SpO(2) according to the Dawson curve in the first 10 min and SpO(2) 90-95% hereafter. Automated FiO(2) control also was applied during surfactant replacement therapy and subsequent ventilation. RESULTS: Time within target range did not differ significantly between manual and automated FiO(2) control during resuscitation, however automated FiO(2) control significantly avoided hyperoxia. Automated FiO(2) control was feasible during surfactant replacement and kept SpO(2) within target range significantly better than manual control during subsequent ventilation. CONCLUSION: In our model, fully automated FiO(2) control was feasible in rapidly changing physiologic conditions during postnatal resuscitation and prevented hyperoxia. We conclude that closed loop FiO(2) control is a promising tool for the delivery room.
Authors: Anne Catherine van der Eijk; Jenny Dankelman; Sander Schutte; Huibert Jan Simonsz; Bert Johan Smit Journal: Acta Paediatr Date: 2011-11-22 Impact factor: 2.299
Authors: Nelson Claure; Eduardo Bancalari; Carmen D'Ugard; Leif Nelin; Melanie Stein; Rangasamy Ramanathan; Richard Hernandez; Steven M Donn; Michael Becker; Thomas Bachman Journal: Pediatrics Date: 2010-12-27 Impact factor: 7.124
Authors: Alan H Jobe; Timothy J M Moss; Ilias Nitsos; Machiko Ikegami; Suhas G Kallapur; John P Newnham Journal: Am J Obstet Gynecol Date: 2007-11 Impact factor: 8.661
Authors: Lisa M Askie; Peter Brocklehurst; Brian A Darlow; Neil Finer; Barbara Schmidt; William Tarnow-Mordi Journal: BMC Pediatr Date: 2011-01-17 Impact factor: 2.125
Authors: Maria Wilinska; Thomas Bachman; Janusz Swietlinski; Maria Kostro; Marta Twardoch-Drozd Journal: BMC Pediatr Date: 2014-05-28 Impact factor: 2.125
Authors: Janneke Dekker; Anton H van Kaam; Charles C Roehr; Andreas W Flemmer; Elizabeth E Foglia; Stuart B Hooper; Arjan B Te Pas Journal: Pediatr Res Date: 2019-06-19 Impact factor: 3.756