Jann P Foster1,2,3, Jennifer A Dawson4,5,6, Peter G Davis5, Hannah G Dahlen7,8. 1. School of Nursing and Midwifery, Western Sydney University, Penrith DC, Australia. 2. Central Clinical School, Discipline of Obstetrics, Gynaecology and Neonatology, University of Sydney, Camperdown, Australia. 3. Ingham Research Institute, Liverpool, NSW, Australia. 4. Neonatal Services, Royal Women's Hospital, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia. 5. The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia. 6. Murdoch Childrens Research Institute, Parkville, Victoria, Australia. 7. School of Nursing and Midwifery, University of Western Sydney, Locked Bag 1797, Penrith, NSW, Australia, 2751. 8. Ingham Institute, Liverpool, Australia.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Oro/nasopharyngeal suction is a method used to clear secretions from the oropharynx and nasopharynx through the application of negative pressure via a suction catheter or bulb syringe. Traditionally, airway oro/nasopharyngeal suction at birth has been used routinely to remove fluid rapidly from the oropharynx and nasopharynx in vigorous and non-vigorous infants at birth. Concerns relating to the reported adverse effects of oro/nasopharyngeal suctioning led to a practice review and routine oro/nasopharyngeal suctioning is no longer recommended for vigorous infants. However, it is important to know whether there is any clear benefit or harm for infants whose oro/nasopharyngeal airway is suctioned compared to infants who are not suctioned. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effect of routine oropharyngeal/nasopharyngeal suction compared to no suction on mortality and morbidity in newly born infants. SEARCH METHODS: We used the standard search strategy of the Cochrane Neonatal Review group to search the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL 2016, Issue 3), MEDLINE via PubMed (1966 to April 18, 2016), Embase (1980 to April 18, 2016), and CINAHL (1982 to April 18, 2016). We also searched clinical trials databases, conference proceedings, and the reference lists of retrieved articles for randomised controlled trials and quasi-randomised trials. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised, quasi-randomised controlled trials and cluster randomised trials that evaluated the effect of routine oropharyngeal/nasopharyngeal suction compared to no suction on mortality and morbidity in newly born infants with and without meconium-stained amniotic fluid. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: The review authors extracted from the reports of the clinical trials, data regarding clinical outcomes including mortality, need for resuscitation, admission to neonatal intensive care, five minute Apgar score, episodes of apnoea and length of hospital stay. MAIN RESULTS: Eight randomised controlled trials met the inclusion criteria and only included term infants (n = 4011). Five studies included infants with no fetal distress and clear amniotic fluid, one large study included vigorous infants with clear or meconium-stained amniotic fluid, and two large studies included infants with thin or thick meconium-stained amniotic fluid. Overall, there was no statistical difference between oro/nasopharyngeal suction and no oro/nasopharyngeal suction for all reported outcomes: mortality (typical RR 2.29, 95% CI 0.94 to 5.53; typical RD 0.01, 95% CI -0.00 to 0.01; I2 = 0%, studies = 2, participants = 3023), need for resuscitation (typical RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.69 to 1.06; typical RD -0.01, 95% CI -0.03 to 0.00; I2 = 0%, studies = 5, participants = 3791), admission to NICU (typical RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.62 to 1.08; typical RD -0.03, 95% CI -0.08 to 0.01; I2 = 27%, studies = 2, participants = 997) and Apgar scores at five minutes (MD -0.03, 95% CI -0.08 to 0.02; I2 not estimated, studies = 3, participants = 330). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The currently available evidence does not support or refute the benefits or harms of routine oro/nasopharyngeal suction over no suction. Further high-quality studies are required in preterm infants or term newborn infants with thick meconium amniotic fluid. Studies should investigate long-term effects such as neurodevelopmental outcomes.
BACKGROUND: Oro/nasopharyngeal suction is a method used to clear secretions from the oropharynx and nasopharynx through the application of negative pressure via a suction catheter or bulb syringe. Traditionally, airway oro/nasopharyngeal suction at birth has been used routinely to remove fluid rapidly from the oropharynx and nasopharynx in vigorous and non-vigorous infants at birth. Concerns relating to the reported adverse effects of oro/nasopharyngeal suctioning led to a practice review and routine oro/nasopharyngeal suctioning is no longer recommended for vigorous infants. However, it is important to know whether there is any clear benefit or harm for infants whose oro/nasopharyngeal airway is suctioned compared to infants who are not suctioned. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effect of routine oropharyngeal/nasopharyngeal suction compared to no suction on mortality and morbidity in newly born infants. SEARCH METHODS: We used the standard search strategy of the Cochrane Neonatal Review group to search the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL 2016, Issue 3), MEDLINE via PubMed (1966 to April 18, 2016), Embase (1980 to April 18, 2016), and CINAHL (1982 to April 18, 2016). We also searched clinical trials databases, conference proceedings, and the reference lists of retrieved articles for randomised controlled trials and quasi-randomised trials. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised, quasi-randomised controlled trials and cluster randomised trials that evaluated the effect of routine oropharyngeal/nasopharyngeal suction compared to no suction on mortality and morbidity in newly born infants with and without meconium-stained amniotic fluid. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: The review authors extracted from the reports of the clinical trials, data regarding clinical outcomes including mortality, need for resuscitation, admission to neonatal intensive care, five minute Apgar score, episodes of apnoea and length of hospital stay. MAIN RESULTS: Eight randomised controlled trials met the inclusion criteria and only included term infants (n = 4011). Five studies included infants with no fetal distress and clear amniotic fluid, one large study included vigorous infants with clear or meconium-stained amniotic fluid, and two large studies included infants with thin or thick meconium-stained amniotic fluid. Overall, there was no statistical difference between oro/nasopharyngeal suction and no oro/nasopharyngeal suction for all reported outcomes: mortality (typical RR 2.29, 95% CI 0.94 to 5.53; typical RD 0.01, 95% CI -0.00 to 0.01; I2 = 0%, studies = 2, participants = 3023), need for resuscitation (typical RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.69 to 1.06; typical RD -0.01, 95% CI -0.03 to 0.00; I2 = 0%, studies = 5, participants = 3791), admission to NICU (typical RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.62 to 1.08; typical RD -0.03, 95% CI -0.08 to 0.01; I2 = 27%, studies = 2, participants = 997) and Apgar scores at five minutes (MD -0.03, 95% CI -0.08 to 0.02; I2 not estimated, studies = 3, participants = 330). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The currently available evidence does not support or refute the benefits or harms of routine oro/nasopharyngeal suction over no suction. Further high-quality studies are required in preterm infants or term newborn infants with thick meconium amniotic fluid. Studies should investigate long-term effects such as neurodevelopmental outcomes.
Authors: John Madar; Charles C Roehr; Sean Ainsworth; Hege Ersda; Colin Morley; Mario Rüdiger; Christiane Skåre; Tomasz Szczapa; Arjan Te Pas; Daniele Trevisanuto; Berndt Urlesberger; Dominic Wilkinson; Jonathan P Wyllie Journal: Notf Rett Med Date: 2021-06-02 Impact factor: 0.892