| Literature DB >> 32854647 |
Elisabeth Sæther1, Friedrich Reinhart-Van Gülpen2, Christer Jensen3,4, Tor Åge Myklebust5, Beate Horsberg Eriksen2.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Deferring cord clamping has proven benefits for both term and preterm infants, and recent studies have demonstrated better cardio-respiratory stability if clamping is based on the infant's physiology, and whether the infant has breathed. Nevertheless, current guidelines for neonatal resuscitation still recommend early cord clamping (ECC) for compromised babies, unless equipment and competent personnel to resuscitate the baby are available at the mother's bedside. The objective of this quality improvement cohort study was to evaluate whether implementing a new delivery room protocol involving mobile resuscitation equipment (LifeStart™) reduced the prevalence of ECC in assisted vaginal deliveries.Entities:
Keywords: Assisted vaginal delivery; Infant; Resuscitation; Umbilical cord clamping
Mesh:
Year: 2020 PMID: 32854647 PMCID: PMC7457264 DOI: 10.1186/s12884-020-03188-0
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Pregnancy Childbirth ISSN: 1471-2393 Impact factor: 3.007
Fig. 1Resuscitation of the newborn. The study interventions in relation to the applied algorithm for resuscitation of the newborn, as recommended by The Norwegian Resuscitation Council (NRR), printed with permission. Photo of the LifeStart™ trolley printed with permission from Inspiration Health Care Ltd
Fig. 2Flow-chart of inclusion of study population
Background characteristics of mothers and infants
| Period 1 ( | Period 2 ( | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Nulliparous | 66 (71.7) | 74 (71.8) | 0.99a |
| Gestational age (weeks) | 40.1 ± 1.3 | 39.9 ± 1.3 | 0.21b |
| Birthweight (g) | 3676 ± 570 | 3508 ± 437 | < 0.01c |
| Delivery mode | |||
| Ventouse | 85 (92.4) | 94 (91.3) | 0.77a |
| Forceps | 2 (2.2) | 2 (1.9) | 1,00b |
| Breech (Lövset’s manoeuvre) | 5 (5.4) | 7 (6.8) | 0.69a |
| Indications, assisted delivery | |||
| Suspect asphyxiae | 50 (54.3) | 61 (59.2) | 0.49a |
| Maternalf | 37 (40.2) | 36 (35.0) | 0.45a |
| Breech presentation | 5 (5.4) | 7 (6.8) | 0.69a |
| Cord blood gases, artery | 73 (79.3) | 83 (80.6) | |
| Arterial pH | 7.20 ± 0.1 | 7.20 ± 0.1 | 0.81c |
| Arterial PCO2 (kPa) | 7.34 ± 1.4 | 7.30 ± 1.3 | 0.86c |
| Arterial base deficit (mmol/l) | 5.93 ± 2.9 | 5.84 ± 2.9 | 0.84c |
| Cord blood gases, vein | 82 (89.1) | 98 (95.1) | |
| Venous pH | 7.32 ± 0.1 | 7.33 ± 0.1 | 0.64c |
| Venous PCO2 (kPa) | 5.08 ± 1.0 | 5.05 ± 1.0 | 0.80c |
| Venous base deficit (mmol/l) | 5.72 ± 2.5 | 5.47 ± 2.5 | 0.53c |
| Metabolic acidosisg | 0 (0) | 1 (0.9) | 1.00d |
| Apgar scores | |||
| 1 min | 8 (6.25–9) | 8 (7–9) | 0.89b |
| 5 min | 9 (9–10) | 9 (9–10) | 1.00b |
| 10 min | 10 (9–10) | 10 (9–10) | 0.73b |
The results are reported as frequency (percentage), mean ± standard deviation (SD), median (inter-quartile range (IQR))
aCalculated using Pearson’s Chi-square Test bCalculated using Independent-Samples Mann-Whitney U Test
cCalculated using Independent samples T-test, equal variances assumed. dCalculated using Fisher’s Exact Test
eBased on information from continuous foetal monitoring (CTG alone or CTG with ST-analysis)
fProlonged 2nd stage, maternal exhaustion, hypertension / pre-eclampsia
gDefined as arterial pH < 7.00 and arterial base deficit ≥12 mmol/liter
Comparison of cord clamping variables and indications for ECC
| Period 1 ( | Period 2 ( | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Cord clamping time in seconds | 320 ± 243 | 457 ± 375 | < 0.001a |
| < 60 s (ECC) | 12 (13.0) | 1 (1.0) | < 0.01b |
| 60–179 s (IMCC) | 12 (13.0) | 3 (2.9) | < 0.01b |
| ≥ 180 s (DCC) | 68 (73.9) | 99 (96.1) | < 0.001b |
| Umbilical cord milking (UCM) | 9 (9.8) | 4 (3.8) | 0.10b |
| Indications for ECC | ( | (n = 1) | |
| None / tradition | 1 (1.1) | 0 (0) | 0.47c |
| Infant moved to resuscitation tabled | 11 (12.0) | 0 (0) | < 0.001c |
| Cord problems | 0 (0) | 1 (1.0) | 1.00 c |
| Maternal complications | 0 (0) | 0 (0) |
The results are reported as mean ± standard deviation (SD), frequency (percentage)
aCalculated using Independent samples T-test, equal variances not assumed
bCalculated using Pearson’s Chi-square Test cCalculated using Fisher’s Exact test
dtraditional resuscitation table in period 1, LifeStart in period 2
Fig. 3Variation in prevalence of ECC
Logistic regression analyses of overall impact of the new delivery room protocol on the prevalence of ECC, adjusted for possible confounding factors
| Covariate | Unadjusted OR | 95% CI | Adjusted OR | 95% CI | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Old protocol | Ref. | ||||
| New protocol | 0.07 | 0.01–0.51 | 0.06 | 0.01–0.49 | < 0.01 |
| Nulliparous | 0.88 | 0.26–2.97 | 1.54 | 0.29–8.19 | 0.62 |
| Gestational age | 1.19 | 0.75–1.87 | 1.08 | 0.56–2.09 | 0.81 |
| Birthweight (g) | 1.00a | 1.00–1.00 | 1.000 | 1.00–1.00 | 0.76 |
| Suspect asphyxia | 0.88 | 0.28–2.71 | 0.84 | 0.21–3.37 | 0.80 |
| 1-min Apgar ≤5 | 13.73 | 4.08–46.22 | 17.61 | 4.46–69.50 | < 0.001 |
Analysed for all assisted vaginal deliveries in periods 1 and 2 (N = 195)
adifferences only visible with 3 decimals
OR Odds ratio CI Confidence interval
Logistic regression analyses of the direct impact of the new, mobile resuscitation table on the prevalence of ECC
| Covariate | Unadjusted OR | 95% CI | Adjusted OR | 95% CI | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Old protocol | Ref. | ||||
| New protocol | 0.02 | 0.00–0.13 | 0.02 | 0.00–0.16 | < 0.001 |
| Nulliparous | 0.84 | 0.23–3.05 | 0.44 | 0.06–3.30 | 0.42 |
| Gestational age | 1.22 | 0.74–2.01 | 0.95 | 0.46–1.96 | 0.89 |
| Birthweight (g) | 1.001a | 1.000–1.002 | 1.001a | 0.998–1.003 | 0.57 |
| Suspect asphyxia | 0.73 | 0.22–2.41 | 0.63 | 0.12–3.25 | 0.58 |
| 1-min Apgar ≤5 | 5.40 | 1.55–18.83 | 2.19 | 0.42–11.39 | 0.35 |
Analysed for all infants placed on a resuscitation table in periods 1 and 2 (N = 83)
adifferences only visible with 3 decimals
OR Odds ratio, CI Confidence interval
Comparison of immediate transitional care and short-term outcomes for infants placed on a resuscitation tablec in periods 1 and 2
| Place of transitional care | Period 1 ( | Period 2 ( | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Infants placed on mothers chest | 69 (75.0) | 43 (41.7) | < 0.001a |
| Infants placed on resuscitation table | 23 (25.0) | 60 (58.3) | < 0.001a |
| Short-term outcomes for infants placed on a resuscitation tablec | ( | ( | |
| Apgar 1 < 5 | 12 (52.0) | 12 (20.0) | < 0.01a |
| Apgar 5 < 7 | 4 (17.4) | 3 (5.0) | 0.09b |
| Apgar 10 < 9 | 9 (39.0) | 9 (15.0) | 0.05a |
| Ventilation support | 15 (65.2) | 33 (55.0) | 0.40a |
| Transfer to NICU | 6 (26.1) | 7 (11.7) | 0.17a |
The results are reported as frequency (percentage)
aCalculated using Pearson’s Chi-square Test bCalculated using Fisher’s Exact Test
ctraditional resuscitation table in period 1, LifeStart in period 2
Logistic regression analyses of immediate care and short-time outcomes for infants placed on a resuscitation tablea in periods 1 (n = 23) and 2 (n = 60)
| Unadjusted estimate | Adjusted estimate | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| OR | 95% CI | OR | 95% CI | |||
| Old protocol | Ref. | |||||
| Ventilation support | 0.65 | 0.24–1.77 | 0.40 | 1.22 | 0.38–3.97 | 0.74 |
| Low Apgar scores | ||||||
| Apgar 5 < 7 | 0.25 | 0.05–1.22 | 0.08 | 0.79 | 0.10–6.37 | 0.82 |
| Apgar 10 < 9 | 0.27 | 0.09–0.82 | 0.02 | 0.57 | 0.15–2.17 | 0.41 |
| Transfer to NICUb | 0.37 | 0.11–1.27 | 0.11 | 0.67 | 0.16–2.76 | 0.58 |
Adjusted for parity, gestational age, birthweight, suspect asphyxia and 1-min Apgar score ≤ 5
atraditional resuscitation table in period 1 (n = 23), LifeStart in period 2 (n = 60)
bdue to prolonged ventilation support or unsuspected compromised infant at birth
OR Odds ratio, CI Confidence interval