OBJECTIVES: This review aimed to examine the benefits and harms of human albumin infusion for treating oedema associated with nephrotic syndrome.
SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Kidney and Transplant Register of Studies up to 23 June 2019 through contact with the Information Specialists using search terms relevant to this review. Studies in the Specialised Register are identified through searches of CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and EMBASE, conference proceedings, the International Clinical Trials Register (ICTRP) Search Portal and ClinicalTrials.gov.
SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs evaluating the effect of human albumin infusion compared with placebo or no intervention, human albumin with diuretics compared with diuretic alone, human albumin compared with diuretics and other treatments, clinical outcomes, death, quality of life, kidney function and adverse effects in people with nephrotic syndrome. We excluded cross-over studies but data for the first period was to be included if available.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Standard methods of the Cochrane Collaboration were used. Two authors independently assessed eligibility, risk of bias, study quality and extracted data. We calculated mean difference (MD) for continuous data with 95% confidence intervals (CI). We assessed the certainty of the evidence using GRADE.
MAIN RESULTS: One study met our inclusion criteria (26 children with minimal change nephrotic syndrome) and 11 were excluded (nine cross-over studies, one where albumin was not used for nephrotic syndrome and one where authors did not state whether the children had oedema). Risk of bias for the included study was unclear for selection bias, high for performance and detection bias, low for attrition bias, and high for selective reporting. The included study compared albumin plus furosemide with an equal volume of dextrose. Of our prespecified outcomes, the authors reported clinical improvement as weight change, serum sodium and adverse outcomes (blood pressure). The authors reported a greater weight loss in the albumin treated group initially but no difference overall at 10 days. However, the data in the text and the figures were inconsistent so we could not confirm the authors statements (very low certainty evidence). It is uncertain whether albumin infusion improves serum sodium when compared with an equal volume of dextrose (MD 2.00 mEq/L, 95% CI -0.09 to 4.09), systolic blood pressure (MD 2.00 mmHg, 95% CI -3.52 to 7.52) or diastolic blood pressure (MD 2.00 mmHg, 95%CI -4.29 to 8.29). Death, quality of life, and kidney function were not reported.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We identified only one small study that was relevant to our review, therefore we are unable to draw any conclusions regarding the use of human albumin with or without diuretics in nephrotic syndrome. More RCTs are needed.
DESIGN: Parallel-group randomised controlled trial with a 1:1 allocation ratio.
SETTING: Two regional tertiary neonatal intensive care units.
PATIENTS: 150 preterm infants less than 35 weeks gestation with birth weight between 1.0 and 1.5 kg were recruited.
INTERVENTIONS: Infants were enrolled to either 2-hourly or 3-hourly interval feeding after randomisation. Blinding was not possible due to the nature of the intervention.
MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was time to achieve full enteral feeding (≥100 mL/kg/day). Secondary outcomes include time to regain birth weight, episode of feeding intolerance, peak serum bilirubin levels, duration of phototherapy, episode of necrotising enterocolitis, nosocomial sepsis and gastro-oesophageal reflux.
RESULTS: 72 infants were available for primary outcome analysis in each group as three were excluded due to death-three deaths in each group. The mean time to full enteral feeding was 11.3 days in the 3-hourly group and 10.2 days in the 2-hourly group (mean difference 1.1 days; 95% CI -0.4 to 2.5; p=0.14). The mean time to regain birth weight was shorter in 3-hourly group (12.9 vs 14.8 days, p=0.04). Other subgroup analyses did not reveal additional significant results. No difference in adverse events was found between the groups.
CONCLUSION: 3-hourly feeding was comparable with 2-hourly feeding to achieve full enteral feeding without any evidence of increased adverse events.
TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ACTRN12611000676910, pre-result.
OBJECTIVES: To determine the safety of shorter feeding intervals (two hours or shorter) versus longer feeding intervals (three hours or more) and to compare the effects in terms of days taken to regain birth weight and to achieve full feeding.
SEARCH METHODS: We used the standard search strategy of Cochrane Neonatal to run comprehensive searches in CENTRAL (2020, Issue 6) and Ovid MEDLINE and Epub Ahead of Print, In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations, Daily and Versions, and CINAHL on 25 June 2020. We searched clinical trials databases and the reference lists of retrieved articles for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs.
SELECTION CRITERIA: We included RCTs and quasi-RCTs comparing short (e.g. one or two hours) versus long (e.g. three or four hours) feeding intervals in preterm infants of any birth weight, all or most of whom were less than 32 weeks' gestation. Infants could be of any postnatal age at trial entry, but eligible infants should not have received feeds before study entry, with the exception of minimal enteral feeding. We included studies of nasogastric or orogastric bolus feeding, breast milk or formula, in which the feeding interval is the intervention.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. We used the GRADE approach to assess the certainty of evidence. Our primary outcomes were days taken to achieve full enteral feeding and days to regain birth weight. Our other outcomes were duration of hospital stay, episodes of necrotising enterocolitis (NEC) and growth during hospital stay (weight, length and head circumference).
MAIN RESULTS: We included four RCTs, involving 417 infants in the review. One study involving 350 infants is awaiting classification. All studies compared two-hourly versus three-hourly feeding interval. The risk of bias of the included studies was generally low, but all studies had high risk of performance bias due to lack of blinding of the intervention. Three studies were included in meta-analysis for the number of days taken to achieve full enteral feeding (351 participants). The mean days to achieve full feeds was between eight and 11 days. There was little or no difference in days taken to achieve full enteral feeding between two-hourly and three-hourly feeding, but this finding was of low certainty (mean difference (MD) ‒0.62, 95% confidence interval (CI) ‒1.60 to 0.36). There was low-certainty evidence that the days taken to regain birth weight may be slightly longer in infants receiving two-hourly feeding than in those receiving three-hourly feeding (MD 1.15, 95% CI 0.11 to 2.20; 3 studies, 350 participants). We are uncertain whether shorter feeding intervals have any effect on any of our secondary outcomes including the duration of hospital stay (MD ‒3.36, 95% CI ‒9.18 to 2.46; 2 studies, 207 participants; very low-certainty evidence) and the risk of NEC (typical risk ratio 1.07, 95% CI 0.54 to 2.11; 4 studies, 417 participants; low-certainty evidence). No study reported growth during hospital stay.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The low-certainty evidence we found in this review suggests that there may be no clinically important differences between two- and three-hourly feeding intervals. There is insufficient information about potential feeding complications and in particular NEC. No studies have looked at the effect of other feeding intervals and there is no long-term data on neurodevelopment or growth.
METHODS: All infants requiring ventilation in the neonatal intensive care unit of a tertiary hospital in Malaysia during the 4-month study period were eligible to enter this randomised controlled trial. All participants were randomised into two groups: experimental and control group. The main outcome measure was malposition of the ETT (requiring adjustment), as seen on the chest X-ray performed within 1 h after intubation. Tube placement was assessed by two neonatologists, blinded to the allocation.
RESULTS: One hundred and ten infants were randomised, 55 in each group. The ETT was malpositioned in 13 of 55 infants (23%) for the experimental group and 22 of 55 infants (40%) in the control group (P = 0.06).
CONCLUSION: In the experimental group, fewer infants showed a need for tube adjustment than in the control group. While a larger study may be necessary to show statistical significance, the difference shown in this study may be large enough to be of clinical significance.
OBJECTIVES: To systematically evaluate the safety and efficacy of different antiseptic solutions in preventing CRBSI and other related outcomes in neonates with CVC.
SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and trial registries up to 22 April 2022. We checked reference lists of included trials and systematic reviews that related to the intervention or population examined in this Cochrane Review. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) or cluster-RCTs were eligible for inclusion in this review if they were performed in the neonatal intensive care unit (NICU), and were comparing any antiseptic solution (single or in combination) against any other type of antiseptic solution or no antiseptic solution or placebo in preparation for central catheter insertion. We excluded cross-over trials and quasi-RCTs.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used the standard methods from Cochrane Neonatal. We used the GRADE approach to assess the certainty of the evidence.
MAIN RESULTS: We included three trials that had two different comparisons: 2% chlorhexidine in 70% isopropyl alcohol (CHG-IPA) versus 10% povidone-iodine (PI) (two trials); and CHG-IPA versus 2% chlorhexidine in aqueous solution (CHG-A) (one trial). A total of 466 neonates from level III NICUs were evaluated. All included trials were at high risk of bias. The certainty of the evidence for the primary and some important secondary outcomes ranged from very low to moderate. There were no included trials that compared antiseptic skin solutions with no antiseptic solution or placebo. CHG-IPA versus 10% PI Compared to PI, CHG-IPA may result in little to no difference in CRBSI (risk ratio (RR) 1.32, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.53 to 3.25; risk difference (RD) 0.01, 95% CI -0.03 to 0.06; 352 infants, 2 trials, low-certainty evidence) and all-cause mortality (RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.46 to 1.68; RD -0.01, 95% CI -0.08 to 0.06; 304 infants, 1 trial, low-certainty evidence). The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of CHG-IPA on CLABSI (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.07 to 15.08; RD 0.00, 95% CI -0.11 to 0.11; 48 infants, 1 trial; very low-certainty evidence) and chemical burns (RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.24 to 4.48; RD 0.00, 95% CI -0.03 to 0.03; 352 infants, 2 trials, very low-certainty evidence), compared to PI. Based on a single trial, infants receiving CHG-IPA appeared less likely to develop thyroid dysfunction compared to PI (RR 0.05, 95% CI 0.00 to 0.85; RD -0.06, 95% CI -0.10 to -0.02; number needed to treat for an additional harmful outcome (NNTH) 17, 95% CI 10 to 50; 304 infants). Neither of the two included trials assessed the outcome of premature central line removal or the proportion of infants or catheters with exit-site infection. CHG-IPA versus CHG-A The evidence suggests CHG-IPA may result in little to no difference in the rate of proven CRBSI when applied on the skin of neonates prior to central line insertion (RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.34 to 1.87; RD -0.05, 95% CI -0.22 to 0.13; 106 infants, 1 trial, low-certainty evidence) and CLABSI (RR 1.14, 95% CI 0.34 to 3.84; RD 0.02, 95% CI -0.12 to 0.15; 106 infants, 1 trial, low-certainty evidence), compared to CHG-A. Compared to CHG-A, CHG-IPA probably results in little to no difference in premature catheter removal (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.26 to 3.19; RD -0.01, 95% CI -0.15 to 0.13; 106 infants, 1 trial, moderate-certainty evidence) and chemical burns (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.47 to 2.03; RD -0.01, 95% CI -0.20 to 0.18; 114 infants, 1 trial, moderate-certainty evidence). No trial assessed the outcome of all-cause mortality and the proportion of infants or catheters with exit-site infection.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Based on current evidence, compared to PI, CHG-IPA may result in little to no difference in CRBSI and mortality. The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of CHG-IPA on CLABSI and chemical burns. One trial showed a statistically significant increase in thyroid dysfunction with the use of PI compared to CHG-IPA. The evidence suggests CHG-IPA may result in little to no difference in the rate of proven CRBSI and CLABSI when applied on the skin of neonates prior to central line insertion. Compared to CHG-A, CHG-IPA probably results in little to no difference in chemical burns and premature catheter removal. Further trials that compare different antiseptic solutions are required, especially in low- and middle-income countries, before stronger conclusions can be made.