Respiratory Support in Meconium Aspiration Syndrome: A Practical Guide

Meconium aspiration syndrome (MAS) is a complex respiratory disease of the term and near-term neonate. Inhalation of meconium causes airway obstruction, atelectasis, epithelial injury, surfactant inhibition, and pulmonary hypertension, the chief clinical manifestations of which are hypoxaemia and poor lung compliance. Supplemental oxygen is the mainstay of therapy for MAS, with around one-third of infants requiring intubation and mechanical ventilation. For those ventilated, high ventilator pressures, as well as a relatively long inspiratory time and slow ventilator rate, may be necessary to achieve adequate oxygenation. High-frequency ventilation may offer a benefit in infants with refractory hypoxaemia and/or gas trapping. Inhaled nitric oxide is effective in those with pulmonary hypertension, and other adjunctive therapies, including surfactant administration and lung lavage, should be considered in selected cases. With judicious use of available modes of ventilation and adjunctive therapies, infants with even the most severe MAS can usually be supported through the disease, with an acceptably low risk of short- and long-term morbidities

Success of blinding a procedural intervention in a randomised controlled trial in preterm infants receiving respiratory support

Background: Blinding of treatment allocation from treating clinicians in neonatal randomised controlled trials can minimise performance bias, but its effectiveness is rarely assessed. // Methods: To examine the effectiveness of blinding a procedural intervention from treating clinicians in a multicentre randomised controlled trial of minimally invasive surfactant therapy versus sham treatment in preterm infants of gestation 25–28 weeks with respiratory distress syndrome. The intervention (minimally invasive surfactant therapy or sham) was performed behind a screen within the first 6 h of life by a ‘study team’ uninvolved in clinical care including decision-making. Procedure duration and the study team’s words and actions during the sham treatment mimicked those of the minimally invasive surfactant therapy procedure. Post-intervention, three clinicians completed a questionnaire regarding perceived group allocation, with the responses matched against actual intervention and categorised as correct, incorrect, or unsure. Success of blinding was calculated using validated blinding indices applied to the data overall (James index, successful blinding defined as > 0.50), or to the two treatment allocation groups (Bang index, successful blinding: −0.30 to 0.30). Blinding success was measured within staff role, and the associations between blinding success and procedural duration and oxygenation improvement post-procedure were estimated. // Results: From 1345 questionnaires in relation to a procedural intervention in 485 participants, responses were categorised as correct in 441 (33%), incorrect in 142 (11%), and unsure in 762 (57%), with similar proportions for each of the response categories in the two treatment arms. The James index indicated successful blinding overall 0.67 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.65–0.70). The Bang index was 0.28 (95% CI 0.23–0.32) in the minimally invasive surfactant therapy group and 0.17 (95% CI 0.12–0.21) in the sham arm. Neonatologists more frequently guessed the correct intervention (47%) than bedside nurses (36%), neonatal trainees (31%), and other nurses (24%). For the minimally invasive surfactant therapy intervention, the Bang index was linearly related to procedural duration and oxygenation improvement post-procedure. No evidence of such relationships was seen in the sham arm. // Conclusion: Blinding of a procedural intervention from clinicians is both achievable and measurable in neonatal randomised controlled trials

Regional pulmonary effects of bronchoalveolar lavage procedure determined by electrical impedance tomography

Abstract Background The provision of guidance in ventilator therapy by continuous monitoring of regional lung ventilation, aeration and respiratory system mechanics is the main clinical benefit of electrical impedance tomography (EIT). A new application was recently described in critically ill patients undergoing diagnostic bronchoalveolar lavage (BAL) with the intention of using EIT to identify the region where sampling was performed. Increased electrical bioimpedance was reported after fluid instillation. To verify the accuracy of these findings, contradicting the current EIT knowledge, we have systematically analysed chest EIT data acquired under controlled experimental conditions in animals undergoing a large number of BAL procedures. Methods One hundred thirteen BAL procedures were performed in 13 newborn piglets positioned both supine and prone. EIT data was obtained at 13 images before, during and after each BAL. The data was analysed at three time points: (1) after disconnection from the ventilator before the fluid instillation and by the ends of fluid (2) instillation and (3) recovery by suction and compared with the baseline measurements before the procedure. Functional EIT images were generated, and changes in pixel electrical bioimpedance were calculated relative to baseline. The data was examined in the whole image and in three (ventral, middle, dorsal) regions-of-interest per lung. Results Compared with the baseline phase, chest electrical bioimpedance fell after the disconnection from the ventilator in all animals in both postures during all procedures. The fluid instillation further decreased electrical bioimpedance. During fluid recovery, electrical bioimpedance increased, but not to baseline values. All effects were highly significant (p < 0.001). The fractional changes in individual regions-of-interest were posture-dependent. The regional fall in electrical bioimpedance was smaller in the ventral and larger in the dorsal regions after the fluid instillation than after the initial disconnection to ambient pressure in supine animals (p < 0.001) whereas these changes were of comparable amplitude in prone position. Conclusions The results of this study show a regionally dissimilar initial fall in electrical bioimpedance caused by non-uniform aeration loss at the beginning of the BAL procedure. They also confirm a further pronounced fall in bioimpedance during fluid instillation, incomplete recovery after suction and a posture-dependent distribution pattern of these effects