STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study using data submitted prospectively to the Malaysian National Neonatal Registry (MNNR).
SETTING: 44 Malaysian NICUs.
PARTICIPANTS: All neonates born in 2015- 2020.
RESULTS: EOS was reported in 991 neonates. The annual incidence of EOS increased from 0.46 to 0.49/1000 livebirths over the six years. The most common pathogen was Streptococcus agalactiae or Group B haemolytic streptococcus (GBS) (n=388, 39.2%), followed by Escherichia coli (E. coli) (n=80, 8.1%), Klebsiella spp (n=73, 7.4%), coagulase negative staphylococcus (CONS) (n=73, 7.4%), Pseudomonas spp (n=44, 4.4%) and methicillin-sensitive Staphylococcus aureus (n=34, 3.4%). The incidence of EOS due to GBS increased from 0.17 to 0.22/1000 livebirths. Morbidities and mortality were higher in those with EOS than without EOS. Multiple logistic regression analysis showed that Indian ethnic group, chorioamnionitis, gestation≥37weeks, female, spontaneous vaginal delivery, instrumental delivery, and surfactant therapy were significantly associated with increased risk of EOS due to GBS. Four factors were significantly associated with increased risk of non-GBS EOS (outborns, birthweight lt;1000 g, vaginal delivery, and surfactant therapy). Early continuous positive airway pressure was associated with significantly lower risk of EOS.
CONCLUSION: The incidence of EOS showed an increasing trend in Malaysian NICUs. GBS was the most common causative pathogen. Several modifiable risk factors associated with EOS have been identified.
OBJECTIVES: We aimed to assess the effectiveness of co-bedding compared with separate (individual) care for stable preterm twins in the neonatal nursery in promoting growth and neurodevelopment and reducing short- and long-term morbidities, and to determine whether co-bedding is associated with significant adverse effects.As secondary objectives, we sought to evaluate effects of co-bedding via the following subgroup analyses: twin pairs with different weight ranges (very low birth weight [VLBW] < 1500 grams vs non-VLBW), twins with versus without significant growth discordance at birth, preterm versus borderline preterm twins, twins co-bedded in incubator versus cot at study entry, and twins randomized by twin pair versus neonatal unit.
SEARCH METHODS: We used the standard search strategy of the Cochrane Neonatal Review Group (CNRG). We used keywords and medical subject headings (MeSH) to search the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2016, Issue 2), MEDLINE (via PubMed), EMBASE (hosted by EBSCOHOST), the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), and references cited in our short-listed articles, up to February 29, 2016.
SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomized controlled trials with randomization by twin pair and/or by neonatal unit. We excluded cross-over studies.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We extracted data using standard methods of the CNRG. Two review authors independently assessed the relevance and risk of bias of retrieved records. We contacted the authors of included studies to request important information missing from their published papers. We expressed our results using risk ratios (RRs) and mean differences (MDs) when appropriate, along with 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs). We adjusted the unit of analysis from individual infants to twin pairs by averaging measurements for each twin pair (continuous outcomes) or by counting outcomes as positive if developed by either twin (dichotomous outcomes).
MAIN RESULTS: Six studies met the inclusion criteria; however, only five studies provided data for analysis. Four of the six included studies were small and had significant limitations in design. As each study reported outcomes differently, data for most outcomes were effectively contributed by a single study. Study authors reported no differences between co-bedded twins and twins receiving separate care in terms of rate of weight gain (MD 0.20 grams/kg/d, 95% CI -1.60 to 2.00; one study; 18 pairs of twins; evidence of low quality); apnea, bradycardia, and desaturation (A/B/D) episodes (RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.18 to 4.05; one study; 62 pairs of twins; evidence of low quality); episodes in co-regulated states (MD 0.96, 95% CI -3.44 to 5.36; one study; three pairs of twins; evidence of very low quality); suspected or proven infection (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.30 to 2.31; three studies; 65 pairs of twins; evidence of very low quality); length of hospital stay (MD -4.90 days, 95% CI -35.23 to 25.43; one study; three pairs of twins; evidence of very low quality); and parental satisfaction measured on a scale of 0 to 55 (MD -0.38, 95% CI -4.49 to 3.73; one study; nine pairs of twins; evidence of moderate quality). Although co-bedded twins appeared to have lower pain scores 30 seconds after heel lance on a scale of 0 to 21 (MD -0.96, 95% CI -1.68 to -0.23; two studies; 117 pairs of twins; I(2) = 75%; evidence of low quality), they had higher pain scores 90 seconds after the procedure (MD 1.00, 95% CI 0.14 to 1.86; one study; 62 pairs of twins). Substantial heterogeneity in the outcome of infant pain response after heel prick at 30 seconds post procedure and conflicting results at 30 and 90 seconds post procedure precluded clear conclusions.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Evidence on the benefits and harms of co-bedding for stable preterm twins was insufficient to permit recommendations for practice. Future studies must be adequately powered to detect clinically important differences in growth and neurodevelopment. Researchers should assess harms such as infection, along with medication errors and caregiver satisfaction.
CONCLUSION: Exposing preterm infants to either 12 h cyglical lighting or continuously dim environment did not have any significant effect on their weight gain during the neonatal period.
METHODS: A prospective cohort study of preterm infants with gestational age