OBJECTIVES: • To assess the benefits and risks of stopping compared to continuing feed management before, during, and after blood transfusion in preterm infants • To assess the effects of stopping versus continuing feeds in the following subgroups of infants: infants of different gestations; infants with symptomatic and asymptomatic anaemia; infants who received different feeding schedules, types of feed, and methods of feed delivery; infants who were transfused with different blood products, at different blood volumes, via different routes of delivery; and those who received blood transfusion with and without co-interventions such as use of diuretics • To determine the effectiveness and safety of stopping feeds around the time of a blood transfusion in reducing the risk of subsequent necrotising enterocolitis (NEC) in preterm infants SEARCH METHODS: We used the standard search strategy of Cochrane Neonatal to search the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2018, Issue 11), in the Cochrane Library; MEDLINE (1966 to 14 November 2018); Embase (1980 to 14 November 2018); and the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL; 1982 to 14 November 2018). We also searched clinical trials databases, conference proceedings, and reference lists of retrieved articles for randomised controlled trials (RCTs), cluster-RCTs, and quasi-RCTs.
SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials that compared stopping feeds versus continuing feeds around the time of blood transfusion in preterm infants.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently selected trials, assessed trial quality, and extracted data from the included studies.
MAIN RESULTS: The search revealed seven studies that assessed effects of stopping feeds during blood transfusion. However, only one RCT involving 22 preterm infants was eligible for inclusion in the review. This RCT had low risk of selection bias but high risk of performance bias, as care personnel were not blinded to the study allocation. The primary objective of this trial was to investigate changes in mesenteric blood flow, and no cases of NEC were reported in any of the infants included in the trial. We were unable to draw any conclusions from this single study. The overall GRADE rating for quality of evidence was very low.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Randomised controlled trial evidence is insufficient to show whether stopping feeds has an effect on the incidence of subsequent NEC or death. Large, adequately powered RCTs are needed to address this issue.
METHODS: A web-based survey was sent to neonatologists from 16 provinces representing 59.6% (824.2 million) of the total population of China on October 2015 and December 2017.
RESULTS: A total of 117 and 219 responses were received in 2015 and 2017, respectively. Compared to 2015, respondents in 2017 were more likely to resuscitate infants <25 weeks of gestation (86% vs. 72%; p < 0.05), but few would resuscitate infants ≤23 weeks of gestation in either epoch (10% vs. 6%). In both epochs, parents were responsible for >50% of the costs of intensive care, but in 2017, significantly fewer clinicians would cease intensive care (75% vs. 88%; p < 0.05) and more would request for economic aid (40% vs. 20%; p < 0.05) if parents could not afford to pay. Resource availability (e.g. ventilators) was not an important factor in either initiation or continuation of intensive care (~60% in both epochs).
CONCLUSION: Cost is an important factor in the initiation and continuation of neonatal intensive care in a developing country like China. Such factors need to be taken into consideration when interpreting outcome data from these regions.
METHODS: A web-based survey (REDCap) was distributed via emails, social networking sites, and professional groups from October 2020 to February 2021 to neonatal clinicians in 35 countries.
RESULTS: A total of 484 responses were obtained from 35 countries and categorized into low/middle-income (43%, LMIC) or high-income (57%, HIC) countries. Of the 484 respondents, 53% would provide TH in mild HIE on case-to-case basis and only 25% would never cool. Clinicians from LMIC were more likely to routinely offer TH in mild HIE (25% v HIC 16%, p < 0.05), have a unit protocol for providing TH (50% v HIC 26%, p < 0.05), use adjunctive tools, e.g., aEEG (49% v HIC 32%, p < 0.001), conduct an MRI post TH (48% v HIC 40%, p < 0.05) and less likely to use neurological examinations as a HIE severity grading tool (80% v HIC 95%, p < 0.001). The majority of respondents (91%) would support a randomized controlled trial that was sufficiently large to examine neurodevelopmental outcomes in mild HIE after TH.
CONCLUSIONS: This is the first survey of global opinion for TH in mild HIE. The overwhelming majority of professionals would consider "cooling" an infant with mild HIE, but LMIC respondents were more likely to routinely cool infants with mild HIE and use adjunctive tools for diagnosis and follow-up. There is wide practice heterogeneity and a sufficiently large RCT designed to examine neurodevelopmental outcomes, is urgently needed and widely supported.