Lorraine McGrory1, Louise S Owen2, Marta Thio2, Jennifer A Dawson2, Anthony R Rafferty3, Atul Malhotra4, Peter G Davis2, C Omar F Kamlin2. 1. Department of Newborn Research, The Royal Women's Hospital, Melbourne, Australia; Department of Child Health, The University of Dundee, Dundee, United Kingdom. Electronic address: lorraine.mcgrory@icloud.com. 2. Department of Newborn Research, The Royal Women's Hospital, Melbourne, Australia; The Murdoch Childrens Research Institute, Melbourne, Australia; Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia. 3. Department of Newborn Research, The Royal Women's Hospital, Melbourne, Australia. 4. Monash Newborn, Monash Children's Hospital, Melbourne, Australia; Department of Pediatrics, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To determine whether the use of heated-humidified gases for respiratory support during the stabilization of infants <30 weeks of gestational age (GA) in the delivery room reduces rates of hypothermia on admission to the neonatal intensive care unit (NICU). STUDY DESIGN: A multicenter, unblinded, randomized trial was conducted in Melbourne, Australia, between February 2013 and June 2015. Infants <30 weeks of GA were randomly assigned to receive either heated-humidified gases or unconditioned gases during stabilization in the delivery room and during transport to NICU. Infants born to mothers with pyrexia >38°C were excluded. Primary outcome was rate of hypothermia on NICU admission (rectal temperature <36.5°C). RESULTS: A total of 273 infants were enrolled. Fewer infants in the heated-humidified group were hypothermic on admission to NICU (36/132 [27%]) compared with controls (61/141 [43%], P < .01). There was no difference in rates of hyperthermia (>37.5°C); 20% (27/132) in the heated-humidified group compared with 16% (22/141) in the controls (P = .30). There were no differences in mortality or respiratory outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: The use of heated-humidified gases in the delivery room significantly reduces hypothermia on admission to NICU in preterm infants, without increased risk of hyperthermia. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: Australian and New Zealand Clinical Trials Register (www.anzctr.org.au) ACTRN12613000093785.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVE: To determine whether the use of heated-humidified gases for respiratory support during the stabilization of infants <30 weeks of gestational age (GA) in the delivery room reduces rates of hypothermia on admission to the neonatal intensive care unit (NICU). STUDY DESIGN: A multicenter, unblinded, randomized trial was conducted in Melbourne, Australia, between February 2013 and June 2015. Infants <30 weeks of GA were randomly assigned to receive either heated-humidified gases or unconditioned gases during stabilization in the delivery room and during transport to NICU. Infants born to mothers with pyrexia >38°C were excluded. Primary outcome was rate of hypothermia on NICU admission (rectal temperature <36.5°C). RESULTS: A total of 273 infants were enrolled. Fewer infants in the heated-humidified group were hypothermic on admission to NICU (36/132 [27%]) compared with controls (61/141 [43%], P < .01). There was no difference in rates of hyperthermia (>37.5°C); 20% (27/132) in the heated-humidified group compared with 16% (22/141) in the controls (P = .30). There were no differences in mortality or respiratory outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: The use of heated-humidified gases in the delivery room significantly reduces hypothermia on admission to NICU in preterm infants, without increased risk of hyperthermia. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: Australian and New Zealand Clinical Trials Register (www.anzctr.org.au) ACTRN12613000093785.
Authors: Jamil Pedro de Siqueira Caldas; Walusa A G Ferri; Sérgio T M Marba; Davi C Aragon; Ruth Guinsburg; Maria F B de Almeida; Edna M A Diniz; Rita C S Silveira; José M S Alves Junior; Marco B Pavanelli; Maria R Bentlin; Daniela M L M Ferreira; Marynéa S Vale; Humberto H Fiori; José L M B Duarte; Jucille A Meneses; Silvia Cwajg; Werther B Carvalho; Lígia S L Ferrari; Nathalia M M Silva; Regina P G V C da Silva; Leni M Anchieta; Juliana P F Santos; Mandira D Kawakami Journal: Eur J Pediatr Date: 2019-05-06 Impact factor: 3.183
Authors: Leeann R Pavlek; Brian K Rivera; Charles V Smith; Joanie Randle; Cory Hanlon; Kristi Small; Edward F Bell; Matthew A Rysavy; Sara Conroy; Carl H Backes Journal: J Pediatr Date: 2021-04-21 Impact factor: 6.314
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
Authors: Jennifer Carns; Kondwani Kawaza; M K Quinn; Yinsen Miao; Rudy Guerra; Elizabeth Molyneux; Maria Oden; Rebecca Richards-Kortum Journal: PLoS One Date: 2018-03-15 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Francesca Viaroli; Po-Yin Cheung; Megan O'Reilly; Graeme R Polglase; Gerhard Pichler; Georg M Schmölzer Journal: Front Pediatr Date: 2018-10-16 Impact factor: 3.418
Authors: Douglas A Blank; Kelly J Crossley; Aidan J Kashyap; Ryan J Hodges; Philip L J DeKoninck; Erin V McGillick; Karyn A Rodgers; Arjan B Te Pas; Stuart B Hooper; Graeme R Polglase Journal: Front Pediatr Date: 2020-10-23 Impact factor: 3.418