Premature Infants Born: Comparison
View Latest Version
Please note this is a comparison between Version 2 by Catherine Yang and Version 1 by Georg Schmoelzer.

After birth, infants born after <25 weeks’ gestation develop respiratory and hemodynamic instability due to their immature physiology and anatomy. Successful stabilization at birth has the potential to reduce morbidities and mortalities, while suboptimal DR care could increase long-term sequelae. 

  • threshold of viability
  • postnatal stabilization
  • umbilical cord management
  • respiratory support
  • cardio-circulatory support
  • premature infants born after <25 weeks’ gestation

1. Introduction

The impending birth of periviable infants born after 22 + 0 to 24 + 6 weeks’ gestation is associated with anxiety and uncertainty for family members and healthcare teams [1]. Parental beliefs and values need to be incorporated into the decision-making process to provide the optimal approach and outcome for the parent–infant dyad. These options include active or comfort (palliative) care. The decision of active management leaves clinicians in a challenging position. Despite the advances that have been achieved in perinatal and neonatal care, there is a lack of strong evidence in delivery room (DR) studies which have included infants at 22 + 0 to 24 + 6 weeks’ gestation [2].

In recent decades, gestational age has continuously shifted lower. However, the stabilization of premature infants born after <25 weeks’ gestation in the DR remains challenging [3]. The current neonatal resuscitation guidelines are designed for term and premature infants born after <32 weeks’ gestation [4,5[4][5][6][7],6,7], thereby potentially not providing the optimal DR management for infants born after <25 weeks’ gestation.

2. Decision Making at <25 Weeks’ Gestation

Decision making about active or comfort (palliative) care in infants to be delivered between 22 + 0 to 24 + 6 weeks’ gestation is challenging. Gestational age (despite the uncertainty of the accuracy of an infant’s gestation determined by fetal ultrasound) is used as the main determinant for decision-making due to its association with outcomes [8,9][8][9]. Current recommendations vary widely and decision making should use a guided approach including parents and care-givers at each hospital. Factors that might influence the decision-making process include birth weight, multifetal pregnancy, sex [10], presence of intra-amniotic infection [11] or the presence of congenital anomalies. In addition, antepartum corticosteroid [12,13][12][13] and magnesium sulfate [14] administration could influence outcomes. Survival predicting tools such as the Neonatal Research Network Extremely Preterm Birth Outcome Model are widely used for prediction by care-givers and thereby may support the decision-making process [15]. However, systematic analyses investigating the impact on neonatal outcome by incorporating survival predicting tools into the decision-making process are lacking.

Survival rates among periviable infants born after 22 + 0 to 24 + 6 weeks’ gestation increase for deliveries that occur in hospitals with NICUs that have both a high level of care and a high volume of such patients [16]. Different perinatal management among hospitals and countries may have a further impact on outcome. In centers with a more proactive perinatal resuscitation strategy in premature infants born after <25 weeks’ gestation, the number of live births increased and survival rates improved when compared to those with a more selective approach, potentially resulting in increased morbidity among survivors [17,18][17][18]. Most importantly, there is an open discussion about the parents’ wishes, the capability of the perinatal center and NICU and their outcomes to provide the best decision-making options for the parents.

3. Umbilical Cord Clamping

Immediate cord clamping (ICC) has been used for several decades. However, evidence suggests that ICC might cause an acute reduction in left atrial, filling leading to an abrupt drop in left ventricular output [19]. In contrast, delayed cord clamping (DCC) might improve blood pressure stability and placental transfusions in premature infants [19,20][19][20]. A meta-analysis including 3514 premature infants born after <34 + 0 weeks’ gestation from 23 studies reported that DCC may improve neonatal survival or reduce neonatal mortality with a survival risk ratio of 1.02, a 95% confidence interval (CI) of 1.00–1.04 with a number needed to benefit: 50, 95% CI: 25 to no benefit [21]. However, most studies included in the meta-analysis only enrolled infants born between 32 and 34 weeks’ gestation. The trial by Tarnow-Mordi et al. included 518 premature infants born after < 27 + 0 weeks’ gestation and reported no differences in the composite of death or major morbidity ( p = 0.23) [22]. While the evidence is limited in premature infants born after <25 weeks, recent guidelines recommend that DCC be performed irrespective of gestational age [4,5,6][4][5][6].

Intact umbilical cord milking (I-UCM) has been advocated as an alternative to DCC, particularly in infants who do not breathe at birth [19]. Animal studies reported that I-UCM promotes placental transfusion, however, this causes large fluctuations in mean carotid artery pressures and carotid artery blood flows (with each milking along 10 cm of cord, carotid artery blood flow increased and decreased by 15% ± 2% and 8% ± 1%, respectively) [23]. A pilot trial comparing I-UCM with DCC reported higher superior vena cava flow and right ventricular output during the first 12 h of life [24] with higher cognitive composite score (100 ± 13 vs. 95 ± 12, p = 0.031) and language composite score (93 ± 15 vs. 87 ± 13, p = 0.013) at 22–26 months of corrected age compared with those randomized to DCC [25]. However, a recent large randomized trial comparing I-UCM with DCC reported a significant increase in the rates of severe intraventricular hemorrhage (IVH) after I-UCM in a subgroup of 182 premature infants born after <28 weeks’ gestation (20 vs. 5; p = 0.02) [26]. This led to an early termination of the trial, and currently I-UCM is not recommended in premature infants born after <28 weeks’ gestation [6].

An alternative approach of umbilical cord milking is cut-umbilical cord milking (C-UCM), which is performed by early cord clamping and retaining a long segment of the umbilical cord that then can be milked while initiating ventilation [27]. In extremely low-birth-weight (ELBW) infants, C-UCM increases the mean blood volume by 17.7 (±5.5) mL/kg birthweight per 30 cm of umbilical cord [28] and has similar effects on placental transfusion and the need for red blood cell transfusions compared to I-UCM [27]. In premature infants, C-UCM may increase peak hematocrit within 24 h after birth compared to ECC, but the study population only included six (10%) ELBW infants [21,29][21][29]. Prospective trials in premature infants born after <25 weeks’ gestation are warranted to prove the safety and effects of C-UCM on short- and long-term outcomes.

4. Respiratory Support in the Delivery Room

Tactile maneuvers might stimulate breathing and thereby improve oxygenation in premature infants [32,46,47][30][31][32]. Katheria et al. have shown that gentle tactile stimulation in premature infants during DCC promotes the establishment of spontaneous breathing and provides a similar placental transfusion compared to CPAP and/or PPV during DCC [32][30]. Baik-Schneditz et al. reported that oxygenation improved after tactile stimulation (before 61.9 (53.1–76.0) versus after stimulation 67.8 (58.1–77.1), p < 0.001) in late premature infants [47][32]. Repetitive tactile stimulation compared with standard stimulation (based on clinical indication) in premature infants 27–32 weeks’ gestation resulted in significantly improved oxygenation with a lower fraction of inspired oxygen (FiO 2), but did not result in differences in respiratory effort between groups [46][31]. Several additional studies reported on tactile stimulation in premature infants > 30 weeks’ gestation. However, only the study by Katheria et al. included premature infants at <25 weeks’ gestation. Future trials are required to assess whether tactile maneuvers improve respiratory function as well as to identify the best tactile stimulation strategy (i.e., stimulation area, duration, frequency, etc.) with a special focus on premature infants born after <25 weeks’ gestation [48][33].

In addition to face masks and bi-nasal prongs, nasal tubes might be equivalent alternative interfaces for PPV at birth in ELBW infants [63][34]. Other supraglottic airways such as oropharyngeal airways or laryngeal masks are currently not recommended in premature infants born after <25 weeks’ gestation, since oropharyngeal airways significantly increased the incidence of airway obstruction and appropriately sized laryngeal masks are not available for those patients [6,64,65][6][35][36]. Administering ventilation at birth with a T-piece resuscitator compared with a self-inflating bag reduces the duration of PPV and the risk of bronchopulmonary dysplasia [66][37].

A meta-analysis of seven trials (<500 total patients) in premature infants born after ≤28 weeks’ gestation reported no differences in mortality, major morbidity, or neurodevelopmental outcomes when respiratory support was started with low (0.21–0.3) compared with higher oxygen (0.6–1) [69][38]. Recent resuscitation guidelines recommend an initial FiO 2 of 0.21–0.3 [5,7][5][7] or 0.3 [4,6][4][6] for premature infants born after <28 weeks’ gestation, which reflects a preference to prevent exposure to additional oxygen beyond what is necessary to achieve oxygen saturation targets. However, a subgroup analysis of premature infants born after <25 weeks’ gestation is not available. Since the current recommendations for oxygen therapy in premature infants come from low-quality evidence, the optimal FiO 2 to initiate respiratory support in those patients after birth remains a hot topic for future research [67][39]. In particular, studies of intermediate oxygen concentrations (e.g., 0.4–0.5%) to initiate resuscitation in premature infants are urgently required.

Endotracheal intubation and the subsequent invasive ventilation should be reserved for premature infants not responding to PPV during DR stabilization, and they should then receive surfactant via the endotracheal tube [4].

5. Cardio-Circulatory Support

5.1. Chest Compressions and Epinephrine Administration

None of the international resuscitation guidelines endorse withholding chest compressions and/or epinephrine administration from the subgroup of premature infants born after <25 weeks’ gestation [5[5][6][7],6,7], although there are concerns over whether extensive cardiopulmonary resuscitation should be performed in such premature infants, as both have been associated with high mortality and neurodevelopmental impairment rates [88,89,90,91][40][41][42][43]. A Canadian cohort study included 190 ELBW infants with a mean (SD) gestational age of 25.4 (1.7) weeks and 29% of subjects born after ≤24 weeks’ gestation who received chest compressions and/or epinephrine administration in the DR. Overall, 60% survived with 78% of the survivors not severely impaired at 18–24 months corrected age [91][43]. A Vermont Oxford Network study reported a higher survival rate in a subgroup of premature infants weighing between 401 and 500 g who received extensive cardiopulmonary resuscitation compared to neonates who did not receive chest compressions and/or epinephrine administration. These findings were attributed to a more aggressive ventilation and resuscitation approach in the investigated cohort [92][44]. In the absence of evidence to justify a different approach in ELBW infants, the standard newborn resuscitation algorithms, including chest compressions and/or epinephrine administration, should also be used in premature infants born after <25 weeks’ gestation, if advanced resuscitation was considered appropriate prior to birth [93][45].

5.2. Vascular Access

The current neonatal resuscitation guidelines recommend vascular access if infants require chest compressions or fluid administration [6]. Vascular access could be achieved with either umbilical venous catheterization, peripheral, or intraosseous access [6,7][6][7]. While umbilical venous catheterization is most commonly used, the success rates and adverse effects attributable to emergency umbilical venous catheterization are unknown. Peripheral venous access has been described in premature infants (mean gestational age of 31 ± 2 weeks) with a high success rate at 5 (IQR 4–9) minutes after birth [94][46]. However, the study did not include premature infants born after <25 weeks’ gestation, which might result in lower success rates.
More recently, intraosseous access has been advocated as an alternative to umbilical venous catheterization [6]. A total of 80 newborns have been described in case series [95[47][48],96], with varying success rates and severe complications such as bone fracture, osteomyelitis, compartment syndrome, and amputation [95][47]. There have been reports on the successful use of a Cook needle (Cook Medical, Bloomington, IN, USA) or butterfly needle in five infants at 25 weeks’ gestation and a lowest birth weight of 515 g [97,98][49][50], but none in premature infants born after <25 weeks’ gestation. While there are currently no data to support intraosseous lines in premature infants born after <25 weeks’ gestation, it might be considered during neonatal resuscitation if other access routes have failed.

References

  1. Wyckoff, M.H. Initial resuscitation and stabilization of the periviable neonate: The golden-hour approach. Semin. Perinatol. 2014, 38, 12–16.
  2. Patel, P.N.; Banerjee, J.; Godambe, S.V. Resuscitation of extremely preterm infants–controversies and current evidence. World J. Clin. Pediatr. 2016, 5, 151–158.
  3. Nosherwan, A.; Cheung, P.Y.; Schmölzer, G.M. Management of extremely low birth weight infants in delivery room. Clin. Perinatol. 2017, 44, 361–375.
  4. Sweet, D.G.; Carnielli, V.; Greisen, G.; Hallman, M.; Ozek, E.; Te Pas, A.; Plavka, R.; Roehr, C.C.; Saugstad, O.D.; Simeoni, U.; et al. European consensus guidelines on the management of respiratory distress syndrome–2019 update. Neonatology 2019, 115, 432–450.
  5. Aziz, K.; Lee, C.H.C.; Escobedo, M.B.; Hoover, A.V.; Kamath-Rayne, B.D.; Kapadia, V.S.; Magid, D.J.; Niermeyer, S.; Schmölzer, G.M.; Szyld, E.; et al. Part 5: Neonatal resuscitation 2020 American Heart Association guidelines for cardiopulmonary resuscitation and emergency cardiovascular care. Pediatrics 2021, 147, e2020038505E.
  6. Madar, J.; Roehr, C.C.; Ainsworth, S.; Ersdal, H.; Morley, C.; Rudiger, M.; Skare, C.; Szczapa, T.; Te Pas, A.; Trevisanuto, D.; et al. European Resuscitation Council guidelines 2021: Newborn resuscitation and support of transition of infants at birth. Resuscitation 2021, 161, 291–326.
  7. Wyckoff, M.H.; Wyllie, J.; Aziz, K.; de Almeida, M.F.; Fabres, J.W.; Fawke, J.; Guinsburg, R.; Hosono, S.; Isayama, T.; Kapadia, V.S.; et al. Neonatal life support 2020 international consensus on cardiopulmonary resuscitation and emergency cardiovascular care science with treatment recommendations. Resuscitation 2020, 156, A156–A187.
  8. Wilkinson, D.J. Gestational ageism. Arch. Pediatr. Adolesc. Med. 2012, 166, 567–572.
  9. Moore, T.; Hennessy, E.M.; Myles, J.; Johnson, S.J.; Draper, E.S.; Costeloe, K.L.; Marlow, N. Neurological and developmental outcome in extremely preterm children born in england in 1995 and 2006: The epicure studies. BMJ 2012, 345, e7961.
  10. Tyson, J.E.; Parikh, N.A.; Langer, J.; Green, C.; Higgins, R.D.; National Institute of Child, H.; Human Development Neonatal Research, N. Intensive care for extreme prematurity--moving beyond gestational age. N. Engl. J. Med. 2008, 358, 1672–1681.
  11. Shim, S.S.; Romero, R.; Hong, J.S.; Park, C.W.; Jun, J.K.; Kim, B.I.; Yoon, B.H. Clinical significance of intra-amniotic inflammation in patients with preterm premature rupture of membranes. Am. J. Obstet. Gynecol. 2004, 191, 1339–1345.
  12. Ehret, D.E.Y.; Edwards, E.M.; Greenberg, L.T.; Bernstein, I.M.; Buzas, J.S.; Soll, R.F.; Horbar, J.D. Association of antenatal steroid exposure with survival among infants receiving postnatal life support at 22 to 25 weeks’ gestation. JAMA Netw. Open 2018, 1, e183235.
  13. McGoldrick, E.; Stewart, F.; Parker, R.; Dalziel, S.R. Antenatal corticosteroids for accelerating fetal lung maturation for women at risk of preterm birth. Cochrane Database Syst. Rev. 2020, 12, CD004454.
  14. Doyle, L.W.; Crowther, C.A.; Middleton, P.; Marret, S.; Rouse, D. Magnesium sulphate for women at risk of preterm birth for neuroprotection of the fetus. Cochrane Database Syst. Rev. 2009, 2009, CD004661.
  15. Rysavy, M.A.; Horbar, J.D.; Bell, E.F.; Li, L.; Greenberg, L.T.; Tyson, J.E.; Patel, R.M.; Carlo, W.A.; Younge, N.E.; Green, C.E.; et al. Assessment of an updated neonatal research network extremely preterm birth outcome model in the vermont oxford network. JAMA Pediatr. 2020, 174, e196294.
  16. Phibbs, C.S.; Baker, L.C.; Caughey, A.B.; Danielsen, B.; Schmitt, S.K.; Phibbs, R.H. Level and volume of neonatal intensive care and mortality in very-low-birth-weight infants. N. Engl. J. Med. 2007, 356, 2165–2175.
  17. Hakansson, S.; Farooqi, A.; Holmgren, P.A.; Serenius, F.; Hogberg, U. Proactive management promotes outcome in extremely preterm infants: A population-based comparison of two perinatal management strategies. Pediatrics 2004, 114, 58–64.
  18. Lorenz, J.M.; Paneth, N.; Jetton, J.R.; den Ouden, L.; Tyson, J.E. Comparison of management strategies for extreme prematurity in New Jersey and The Netherlands: Outcomes and resource expenditure. Pediatrics 2001, 108, 1269–1274.
  19. Katheria, A.C.; Lakshminrusimha, S.; Rabe, H.; McAdams, R.; Mercer, J.S. Placental transfusion: A review. J. Perinatol. 2017, 37, 105–111.
  20. Rabe, H.; Gyte, G.M.; Diaz-Rossello, J.L.; Duley, L. Effect of timing of umbilical cord clamping and other strategies to influence placental transfusion at preterm birth on maternal and infant outcomes. Cochrane Database Syst. Rev. 2019, 9, CD003248.
  21. Seidler, A.L.; Gyte, G.M.L.; Rabe, H.; Diaz-Rossello, J.L.; Duley, L.; Aziz, K.; Testoni Costa-Nobre, D.; Davis, P.G.; Schmölzer, G.M.; Ovelman, C.; et al. Umbilical cord management for newborns <34 weeks’ gestation: A meta-analysis. Pediatrics 2021, 147, 3.
  22. Tarnow-Mordi, W.; Morris, J.; Kirby, A.; Robledo, K.; Askie, L.; Brown, R.; Evans, N.; Finlayson, S.; Fogarty, M.; Gebski, V.; et al. Delayed versus immediate cord clamping in preterm infants. N. Engl. J. Med. 2017, 377, 2445–2455.
  23. Blank, D.A.; Polglase, G.R.; Kluckow, M.; Gill, A.W.; Crossley, K.J.; Moxham, A.; Rodgers, K.; Zahra, V.; Inocencio, I.; Stenning, F.; et al. Haemodynamic effects of umbilical cord milking in premature sheep during the neonatal transition. Arch. Dis. Child. Fetal Neonatal. Ed. 2018, 103, F539–F546.
  24. Katheria, A.C.; Truong, G.; Cousins, L.; Oshiro, B.; Finer, N.N. Umbilical cord milking versus delayed cord clamping in preterm infants. Pediatrics 2015, 136, 61–69.
  25. Katheria, A.; Garey, D.; Truong, G.; Akshoomoff, N.; Steen, J.; Maldonado, M.; Poeltler, D.; Harbert, M.J.; Vaucher, Y.E.; Finer, N. A randomized clinical trial of umbilical cord milking vs delayed cord clamping in preterm infants: Neurodevelopmental outcomes at 22–26 months of corrected age. J. Pediatr. 2018, 194, 76–80.
  26. Katheria, A.; Reister, F.; Essers, J.; Mendler, M.; Hummler, H.; Subramaniam, A.; Carlo, W.; Tita, A.; Truong, G.; Davis-Nelson, S.; et al. Association of umbilical cord milking vs delayed umbilical cord clamping with death or severe intraventricular hemorrhage among preterm infants. JAMA 2019, 322, 1877–1886.
  27. Hosono, S.; Mugishima, H.; Takahashi, S.; Takahashi, S.; Masaoka, N.; Yamamoto, T.; Tamura, M. One-time umbilical cord milking after cord cutting has same effectiveness as multiple-time umbilical cord milking in infants born at <29 weeks of gestation: A retrospective study. J. Perinatol. 2015, 35, 590–594.
  28. Hosono, S.; Hine, K.; Nagano, N.; Taguchi, Y.; Yoshikawa, K.; Okada, T.; Mugishima, H.; Takahashi, S.; Takahashi, S. Residual blood volume in the umbilical cord of extremely premature infants. Pediatr. Int. 2015, 57, 68–71.
  29. Ram Mohan, G.; Shashidhar, A.; Chandrakala, B.S.; Nesargi, S.; Suman Rao, P.N. Umbilical cord milking in preterm neonates requiring resuscitation: A randomized controlled trial. Resuscitation 2018, 130, 88–91.
  30. Katheria, A.; Poeltler, D.; Durham, J.; Steen, J.; Rich, W.; Arnell, K.; Maldonado, M.; Cousins, L.; Finer, N. Neonatal resuscitation with an intact cord: A randomized clinical trial. J. Pediatr. 2016, 178, 75–80.e3.
  31. Dekker, J.; Hooper, S.B.; Martherus, T.; Cramer, S.J.E.; van Geloven, N.; Te Pas, A.B. Repetitive versus standard tactile stimulation of preterm infants at birth–a randomized controlled trial. Resuscitation 2018, 127, 37–43.
  32. Baik-Schneditz, N.; Urlesberger, B.; Schwaberger, B.; Mileder, L.; Schmölzer, G.; Avian, A.; Pichler, G. Tactile stimulation during neonatal transition and its effect on vital parameters in neonates during neonatal transition. Acta Paediatr. 2018, 107, 952–957.
  33. Gaertner, V.D.; Flemmer, S.A.; Lorenz, L.; Davis, P.G.; Kamlin, C.O.F. Physical stimulation of newborn infants in the delivery room. Arch. Dis. Child. Fetal Neonatal Ed. 2018, 103, F132–F136.
  34. Kamlin, C.O.; Schilleman, K.; Dawson, J.A.; Lopriore, E.; Donath, S.M.; Schmölzer, G.M.; Walther, F.J.; Davis, P.G.; Te Pas, A.B. Mask versus nasal tube for stabilization of preterm infants at birth: A randomized controlled trial. Pediatrics 2013, 132, e381–e388.
  35. Schmölzer, G.M.; Agarwal, M.; Kamlin, C.O.; Davis, P.G. Supraglottic airway devices during neonatal resuscitation: An historical perspective, systematic review and meta-analysis of available clinical trials. Resuscitation 2013, 84, 722–730.
  36. Kamlin, C.O.F.; Schmölzer, G.M.; Dawson, J.A.; McGrory, L.; O’Shea, J.; Donath, S.M.; Lorenz, L.; Hooper, S.B.; Davis, P.G. A randomized trial of oropharyngeal airways to assist stabilization of preterm infants in the delivery room. Resuscitation 2019, 144, 106–114.
  37. Trevisanuto, D.; Roehr, C.C.; Davis, P.G.; Schmölzer, G.M.; Wyckoff, M.H.; Liley, H.G.; Rabi, Y.; Weiner, G.M.; International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation Neonatal Life Support Task Force. Devices for administering ventilation at birth: A systematic review. Pediatrics 2021, 148, e2021050174.
  38. Welsford, M.; Nishiyama, C.; Shortt, C.; Weiner, G.; Roehr, C.C.; Isayama, T.; Dawson, J.A.; Wyckoff, M.H.; Rabi, Y.; International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation Neonatal Life Support Task Force. Initial oxygen use for preterm newborn resuscitation: A systematic review with meta-analysis. Pediatrics 2019, 143, 26.
  39. Oei, J.L.; Saugstad, O.D.; Vento, M. Oxygen and preterm infant resuscitation: What else do we need to know? Curr. Opin. Pediatr. 2018, 30, 192–198.
  40. Wyckoff, M.H.; Salhab, W.A.; Heyne, R.J.; Kendrick, D.E.; Stoll, B.J.; Laptook, A.R.; National Institute of Child, H.; Human Development Neonatal Research, N. Outcome of extremely low birth weight infants who received delivery room cardiopulmonary resuscitation. J. Pediatr. 2012, 160, 239–244.e232.
  41. Arnon, S.; Dolfin, T.; Reichman, B.; Regev, R.H.; Lerner-Geva, L.; Boyko, V.; Litmanovitz, I. Delivery room resuscitation and adverse outcomes among very low birth weight preterm infants. J. Perinatol. 2017, 37, 1010–1016.
  42. Soraisham, A.S.; Lodha, A.K.; Singhal, N.; Aziz, K.; Yang, J.; Lee, S.K.; Shah, P.S.; Canadian Neonatal, N. Neonatal outcomes following extensive cardiopulmonary resuscitation in the delivery room for infants born at less than 33 weeks gestational age. Resuscitation 2014, 85, 238–243.
  43. Fischer, N.; Soraisham, A.; Shah, P.S.; Synnes, A.; Rabi, Y.; Singhal, N.; Ting, J.Y.; Creighton, D.; Dewey, D.; Ballantyne, M.; et al. Extensive cardiopulmonary resuscitation of preterm neonates at birth and mortality and developmental outcomes. Resuscitation 2019, 135, 57–65.
  44. Finer, N.N.; Horbar, J.D.; Carpenter, J.H. Cardiopulmonary resuscitation in the very low birth weight infant: The Vermont Oxford Network experience. Pediatrics 1999, 104, 428–434.
  45. Wilkinson, D.; Marlow, N.; Hayden, D.; Mactier, H. Recommendations in the face of uncertainty: Should extremely preterm infants receive chest compressions and/or epinephrine in the delivery room? Arch. Dis. Child. Fetal Neonatal Ed. 2020, 105, 240–241.
  46. Baik-Schneditz, N.; Pichler, G.; Schwaberger, B.; Mileder, L.; Avian, A.; Urlesberger, B. Peripheral intravenous access in preterm neonates during postnatal stabilization: Feasibility and safety. Front. Pediatr. 2017, 5, 171.
  47. Scrivens, A.; Reynolds, P.R.; Emery, F.E.; Roberts, C.T.; Polglase, G.R.; Hooper, S.B.; Roehr, C.C. Use of intraosseous needles in neonates: A systematic review. Neonatology 2019, 116, 305–314.
  48. Mileder, L.P.; Urlesberger, B.; Schwaberger, B. Use of intraosseous vascular access during neonatal resuscitation at a tertiary center. Front. Pediatr. 2020, 8, 571285.
  49. Lake, W.; Emmerson, A.J. Use of a butterfly as an intraosseous needle in an oedematous preterm infant. Arch. Dis. Child. Fetal Neonatal Ed. 2003, 88, F409.
  50. Ellemunter, H.; Simma, B.; Trawoger, R.; Maurer, H. Intraosseous lines in preterm and full term neonates. Arch. Dis. Child. Fetal Neonatal Ed. 1999, 80, F74–F75.
More
© Text is available under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/)
ScholarVision Creations
Feedback