First name
Nicolas
Last name
Bamat

Title

Nasal continuous positive airway pressure levels for the prevention of morbidity and mortality in preterm infants.

Year of Publication

2021

Number of Pages

CD012778

Date Published

2021 11 30

ISSN Number

1469-493X

Abstract

<p><strong>BACKGROUND: </strong>Preterm infants are at risk of lung atelectasis due to various anatomical and physiological immaturities, placing them at high risk of respiratory failure and associated harms. Nasal continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) is a positive pressure applied to the airways via the nares. It helps prevent atelectasis and supports adequate gas exchange in spontaneously breathing infants. Nasal CPAP is used in the care of preterm infants around the world. Despite its common use, the appropriate pressure levels to apply during nasal CPAP use remain uncertain.</p>

<p><strong>OBJECTIVES: </strong>To assess the effects of 'low' (≤ 5 cm HO) versus 'moderate-high' (&gt; 5 cm HO) initial nasal CPAP pressure levels in preterm&nbsp;infants receiving CPAP either: 1) for initial respiratory support after birth and neonatal resuscitation or 2) following mechanical ventilation and endotracheal extubation.</p>

<p><strong>SEARCH METHODS: </strong>We ran a comprehensive search on 6 November 2020 in the following databases: CENTRAL via CRS Web and MEDLINE via Ovid. We also searched clinical trials databases and the reference lists of retrieved articles for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-randomized trials.</p>

<p><strong>SELECTION CRITERIA: </strong>We included RCTs, quasi-RCTs, cluster-RCTs and cross-over RCTs randomizing preterm infants of gestational age &lt; 37 weeks or birth weight &lt; 2500 grams within the first 28 days of life to different nasal CPAP levels.</p>

<p><strong>DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: </strong>We used the standard methods of Cochrane Neonatal to collect and analyze data. We used the GRADE approach to assess the certainty of the evidence for the prespecified primary outcomes.</p>

<p><strong>MAIN RESULTS: </strong>Eleven trials met inclusion criteria of the review. Four trials were parallel-group RCTs reporting our prespecified primary or secondary outcomes. Two trials randomized 316 infants to low versus moderate-high nasal CPAP for initial respiratory support, and two trials randomized 117 infants to low versus moderate-high nasal CPAP following endotracheal extubation. The remaining seven studies were cross-over trials reporting short-term physiological outcomes. The most common potential sources of bias were absent or unclear blinding of personnel and assessors and uncertain selective reporting. Nasal CPAP for initial respiratory support after birth and neonatal resuscitation None of the six primary outcomes prespecified for inclusion in the summary of findings was eligible for meta-analysis. No trials reported on moderate-severe neurodevelopmental impairment at 18 to 26 months. The remaining five outcomes were reported in a single trial. On the basis of this trial, we are uncertain whether low or moderate-high nasal CPAP levels improve the outcomes of: death or bronchopulmonary dysplasia (BPD) at 36 weeks' postmenstrual age (PMA) (risk ratio (RR) 1.02, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.56 to 1.85; 1 trial, 271 participants); mortality by hospital discharge (RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.51 to 2.12; 1 trial, 271 participants); BPD at 28 days of age (RR 1.10, 95% CI 0.56 to 2.17; 1 trial, 271 participants); BPD at 36 weeks' PMA (RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.25 to 2.57; 1 trial, 271 participants), and treatment failure or need for mechanical ventilation (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.63 to 1.57; 1 trial, 271 participants). We assessed the certainty of the evidence as very low for all five outcomes due to risk of bias, a lack of consistency across multiple studies, and imprecise effect estimates. Nasal CPAP following mechanical ventilation and endotracheal extubation One of the six primary outcomes prespecified for inclusion in the summary of findings was eligible for meta-analysis. On the basis of these data, we are uncertain whether low or moderate-high nasal CPAP levels improve the outcome of treatment failure or need for mechanical ventilation (RR 1.52, 95% CI 0.92 to 2.50; 2 trials, 117 participants; I = 17%; risk difference 0.15, 95% CI -0.02 to 0.32; number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome 7, 95% CI -50 to 3). We assessed the certainty of the evidence as very low due to risk of bias, inconsistency across the studies, and imprecise effect estimates. No trials reported on moderate-severe neurodevelopmental impairment at 18 to 26 months or BPD at 28 days of age. The remaining three outcomes were reported in a single trial. On the basis of this trial, we are uncertain whether low or moderate-high nasal CPAP levels improve the outcomes of: death or BPD at 36 weeks' PMA (RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.51 to 1.49; 1 trial, 93 participants); mortality by hospital discharge (RR 2.94, 95% CI 0.12 to 70.30; 1 trial, 93 participants), and BPD at 36 weeks' PMA (RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.51 to 1.49; 1 trial, 93 participants). We assessed the certainty of the evidence as very low for all three outcomes due to risk of bias, a lack of consistency across multiple studies, and imprecise effect estimates.&nbsp; AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There are insufficient data from randomized trials to guide nasal CPAP level selection in preterm infants, whether provided as initial respiratory support or following extubation from invasive mechanical ventilation. We are uncertain as to whether low or moderate-high nasal CPAP levels improve morbidity and mortality in preterm infants. Well-designed trials evaluating this important aspect of a commonly used neonatal therapy are needed.</p>

DOI

10.1002/14651858.CD012778.pub2

Alternate Title

Cochrane Database Syst Rev

PMID

34847243

Title

Building a community of practice through social media using the hashtag #neoEBM.

Year of Publication

2021

Number of Pages

e0252472

Date Published

2021

ISSN Number

1932-6203

Abstract

<p><strong>OBJECTIVES: </strong>Social media use is associated with developing communities of practice that promote the rapid exchange of information across traditional institutional and geographical boundaries faster than previously possible. We aimed to describe and share our experience using #neoEBM (Neonatal Evidence Based Medicine) hashtag to organise and build a digital community of neonatal care practice.</p>

<p><strong>MATERIALS AND METHODS: </strong>Analysis of #neoEBM Twitter data in the Symplur Signals database between 1 May 2018 to 9 January 2021. Data on tweets containing the #neoEBM hashtag were analysed using online analytical tools, including the total number of tweets and user engagement.</p>

<p><strong>RESULTS: </strong>Since its registration, a total of 3 228 distinct individual Twitter users used the hashtag with 23 939 tweets and 37 259 710 impressions generated. The two days with the greatest number of tweets containing #neoEBM were 8 May 2018 (n = 218) and 28 April 2019 (n = 340), coinciding with the annual Pediatric Academic Societies meeting. The majority of Twitter users made one tweet using #neoEBM (n = 1078), followed by two tweets (n = 411) and more than 10 tweets (n = 347). The number of individual impressions (views) of tweets containing #neoEBM was 37 259 710. Of the 23 939 tweets using #neoEBM, 17 817 (74%) were retweeted (shared), 15 643 (65%) included at least one link and 1 196 (5%) had at least one reply. As #neoEBM users increased over time, so did tweets containing #neoEBM, with each additional user of the hashtag associated with a mean increase in 7.8 (95% CI 7.7-8.0) tweets containing #neoEBM.</p>

<p><strong>CONCLUSION: </strong>Our findings support the observation that the #neoEBM community possesses many of the characteristics of a community of practice, and it may be an effective tool to disseminate research findings. By sharing our experiences, we hope to encourage others to engage with or build online digital communities of practice to share knowledge and build collaborative networks across disciplines, institutions and countries.</p>

DOI

10.1371/journal.pone.0252472

Alternate Title

PLoS One

PMID

34048469

Title

EBNEO commentaries: An ongoing collaboration advancing evidence-based neonatal care.

Year of Publication

2021

Date Published

2021 Jan 21

ISSN Number

1651-2227

DOI

10.1111/apa.15750

Alternate Title

Acta Paediatr

PMID

33475179

Title

Positive end-expiratory pressure for preterm infants requiring conventional mechanical ventilation for respiratory distress syndrome or bronchopulmonary dysplasia.

Year of Publication

2019

Number of Pages

CD004500

Date Published

2019 Feb 26

ISSN Number

1469-493X

Abstract

<p><strong>BACKGROUND: </strong>Conventional mechanical ventilation (CMV) is a common therapy for neonatal respiratory failure. While CMV facilitates gas exchange, it may simultaneously injure the lungs. Positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) has received less attention than other ventilation parameters when considering this benefit-risk balance. While an appropriate PEEP level may result in clinical benefits, both inappropriately low or high levels may cause harm. An appropriate PEEP level may also be best achieved by an individualized approach.</p>

<p><strong>OBJECTIVES: </strong>1. To compare the effects of PEEP levels in preterm infants requiring CMV for respiratory distress syndrome (RDS). We compare both: zero end-expiratory pressure (ZEEP) (0 cm HO) versus any PEEP and low (&lt; 5 cm HO) vs high (≥ 5 cm HO) PEEP.2. To compare the effects of PEEP levels in preterm infants requiring CMV for bronchopulmonary dysplasia (BPD). We compare both: ZEEP (0 cm HO) vs any PEEP and low (&lt; 5 cm HO) versus high (≥ 5 cm HO) PEEP.3. To compare the effects of different methods for individualizing PEEP to an optimal level in preterm newborn infants requiring CMV for RDS.</p>

<p><strong>SEARCH METHODS: </strong>We used the standard search strategy of Cochrane Neonatal to search the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE via PubMed, Embase, and CINAHL to 14 February 2018. We also searched clinical trials databases, conference proceedings, and the reference lists of retrieved articles for randomized controlled trials and quasi-randomized trials.</p>

<p><strong>SELECTION CRITERIA: </strong>We included all randomized or quasi-randomized controlled trials studying preterm infants born at less than 37 weeks' gestational age, requiring CMV and undergoing randomization to either different PEEP levels (RDS or BPD); or, two or more alternative methods for individualizing PEEP levels (RDS only). We included cross-over trials but limited outcomes to those from the first cross-over period.</p>

<p><strong>DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: </strong>We performed data collection and analysis according to the recommendations of the Cochrane Neonatal Review Group. We used the GRADE approach to assess the quality of evidence for prespecified key clinically relevant outcomes.</p>

<p><strong>MAIN RESULTS: </strong>Four trials met the inclusion criteria. Two cross-over trials with 28 participants compared different PEEP levels in infants with RDS. Meta-analysis was limited to short-term measures of pulmonary gas exchange and showed no differences between low and high PEEP.We identified no trials comparing PEEP levels in infants with BPD.Two trials enrolling 44 participants compared different methods for individualizing PEEP in infants with RDS. Both trials compared an oxygenation-guided lung-recruitment maneuver (LRM) with gradual PEEP level titrations for individualizing PEEP to routine care (control). Meta-analysis showed no difference between LRM and control on mortality by hospital discharge (risk ratio (RR) 1.00, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.17 to 5.77); there was no statistically significant difference on BPD, with an effect estimate favoring LRM (RR 0.25, 95% CI 0.03 to 2.07); and a statistically significant difference favoring LRM for the outcome of duration of ventilatory support (mean difference -1.06 days, 95% CI -1.85 to -0.26; moderate heterogeneity, I = 67%). Short-term oxygenation measures also favored LRM. We graded the quality of the evidence as low for all key outcomes due to risk of bias and imprecision of the effect estimates.</p>

<p><strong>AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: </strong>There continues to be insufficient evidence to guide PEEP level selection for preterm infants on CMV for RDS or BPD. Low-quality data suggests that selecting PEEP levels through the application of an oxygenation-guided LRM may result in clinical benefit. Well-conducted randomized trials, particularly to further evaluate the potential benefits of oxygenation-guided LRMs, are needed.</p>

DOI

10.1002/14651858.CD004500.pub3

Alternate Title

Cochrane Database Syst Rev

PMID

30820939

Title

Utilising social media to educate and inform healthcare professionals, policy-makers and the broader community in evidence-based healthcare.

Year of Publication

2018

Date Published

2018 Jul 26

ISSN Number

2515-4478

Abstract

<p>Social media is emerging as key solution to increase collaborative discourse between individuals, institutions and countries. Although evidence of social media’s impact on health policy is limited, its potential to promote knowledge dissemination and provide open forums for critical appraisal of evidence-based literature is increasingly clear. Social media in many ways is the definition of dissemination. It can be an active tool for spreading evidence-based information to a target audience (population) via determined channels (social media platforms) using planned strategies. Social media has a heterogeneous array of definitions as it can describe particular platforms of use (ie, Twitter or Facebook) or a particular methodology of connecting users. Social media in medicine can be defined as any digital media that enables widespread connectivity between users using a defined methodology of approach (ie, blog, podcast and so on).</p>

DOI

10.1136/bmjebm-2018-111016

Alternate Title

BMJ Evid Based Med

PMID

30049686

Title

Inconsistent conclusions of statistical significance based on p-values and confidence intervals.

Year of Publication

2018

Number of Pages

295-296

Date Published

2018 Mar

ISSN Number

1476-5543

DOI

10.1038/s41372-017-0027-1

Alternate Title

J Perinatol

PMID

29298983

WATCH THIS PAGE

Subscription is not available for this page.