Archives of disease in childhood. Fetal and neonatal edition · 2017
Chest compression during sustained inflation versus 3:1 chest compression:ventilation ratio during neonatal cardiopulmonary resuscitation: a randomised feasibility trial.
СтатьяРандомизированное исследованиеНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Schmölzer Georg M, O Reilly Megan, Fray Caroline, van Os Sylvia, Cheung Po-Yin
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Current neonatal resuscitation guidelines recommend 3:1 compression:ventilation (C:V) ratio. Recently, animal studies reported that continuous chest compressions (CC) during a sustained inflation (SI) significantly improved return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC). The approach of CC during SI (CC+SI) has not been examined in the delivery room during neonatal resuscitation.
HYPOTHESIS: It is a feasibility study to compare CC+SI versus 3:1 C:V ratio during neonatal resuscitation in the delivery room. We hypothesised that during neonatal resuscitation, CC+SI will reduce the time to ROSC. Our aim was to examine if CC+SI reduces ROSC compared with 3:1 C:V CPR in preterm infants <33 weeks of gestation.
STUDY DESIGN: Randomised feasibility trial.
METHOD: Once CC was indicated all eligible infants were immediately and randomly allocated to either CC+SI group or 3:1 C:V group. A sequentially numbered, brown, sealed envelope contained a folded card box with the treatment allocation was opened by the clinical team at the start of CC.
STUDY INTERVENTIONS: Infants in the CC+SI group received CC at a rate of 90/min during an SI with a duration of 20 s (CC+SI). After 20 s, the SI was interrupted for 1 s and the next SI was started for another 20 s until ROSC. Infants in the '3:1 group' received CC using 3:1 C:V ratio until ROSC.
PRIMARY OUTCOME: Overall the mean (SD) time to ROSC was significantly shorter in the CC+SI group with 31 (9) s compared with 138 (72) s in the 3:1 C:V group (p=0.011).
CONCLUSION: CC+SI is feasible in the delivery room.
TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: Clinicaltrials.gov NCT02083705, pre-results.
HYPOTHESIS: It is a feasibility study to compare CC+SI versus 3:1 C:V ratio during neonatal resuscitation in the delivery room. We hypothesised that during neonatal resuscitation, CC+SI will reduce the time to ROSC. Our aim was to examine if CC+SI reduces ROSC compared with 3:1 C:V CPR in preterm infants <33 weeks of gestation.
STUDY DESIGN: Randomised feasibility trial.
METHOD: Once CC was indicated all eligible infants were immediately and randomly allocated to either CC+SI group or 3:1 C:V group. A sequentially numbered, brown, sealed envelope contained a folded card box with the treatment allocation was opened by the clinical team at the start of CC.
STUDY INTERVENTIONS: Infants in the CC+SI group received CC at a rate of 90/min during an SI with a duration of 20 s (CC+SI). After 20 s, the SI was interrupted for 1 s and the next SI was started for another 20 s until ROSC. Infants in the '3:1 group' received CC using 3:1 C:V ratio until ROSC.
PRIMARY OUTCOME: Overall the mean (SD) time to ROSC was significantly shorter in the CC+SI group with 31 (9) s compared with 138 (72) s in the 3:1 C:V group (p=0.011).
CONCLUSION: CC+SI is feasible in the delivery room.
TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: Clinicaltrials.gov NCT02083705, pre-results.