Effects of caffeine and/or nasal CPAP treatment on laryngeal chemoreflexes in preterm lambs

Current knowledge suggests that laryngeal chemoreflexes (LCR) are involved in the occurrence of certain neonatal apneas/bradycardias, especially in the preterm newborn. While caffeine and/or nasal continuous positive airway pressure (nCPAP) are the most frequent options used for treating apneas in preterm newborns, their effects on LCR-related apneas/bradycardias are virtually unknown. The aim of the present study was to test the hypothesis that caffeine and/or nCPAP decreases LCR-related cardiorespiratory inhibition in a preterm ovine model. Seven preterm lambs were born vaginally on gestational day 133 (normal gestation: 147 days) after intramuscular injections of betamethasone and mifepristone. Five days after birth, a chronic surgical instrumentation was performed to record states of alertness, electrocardiogram, systemic arterial pressure, and electromyographic activity of a laryngeal constrictor muscle, as well as to insert a transcutaneous supraglottal catheter. LCR were induced in quiet sleep under four conditions: 1) control (without caffeine or nCPAP); 2) nCPAP (5 cmH2O, without caffeine); 3) caffeine (10 mg/kg infused intravenously for 30 min, without nCPAP); and 4) nCPAP + caffeine. Our results showed that nCPAP consistently blunted LCR-related cardiorespiratory inhibition vs. control condition, contrary to caffeine whose overall effect was nonsignificant. In addition, nCPAP condition was characterized by a more consistent and rapid arousal after HCl injection. No significant differences were observed between all tested conditions with regard to swallowing and cough. It is concluded that nCPAP should be further assessed for its usefulness in treating neonatal apneas linked to LCR

Elective high-frequency oscillatory ventilation in preterm infants with respiratory distress syndrome: an individual patient data meta-analysis

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Despite the considerable amount of evidence from randomized controlled trials and meta-analyses, uncertainty remains regarding the efficacy and safety of high-frequency oscillatory ventilation as compared to conventional ventilation in the early treatment of respiratory distress syndrome in preterm infants. This results in a wide variation in the clinical use of high-frequency oscillatory ventilation for this indication throughout the world. The reasons are an unexplained heterogeneity between trial results and a number of unanswered, clinically important questions. Do infants with different risk profiles respond differently to high-frequency oscillatory ventilation? How does the ventilation strategy affect outcomes? Does the delay – either from birth or from the moment of intubation – to the start of high-frequency oscillation modify the effect of the intervention? Instead of doing new trials, those questions can be addressed by re-analyzing the individual patient data from the existing randomized controlled trials.</p> <p>Methods/Design</p> <p>A systematic review with meta-analysis based on individual patient data. This involves the central collection, validation and re-analysis of the original individual data from each infant included in each randomized controlled trial addressing this question.</p> <p>The study objective is to estimate the effect of high-frequency oscillatory ventilation on the risk for the combined outcome of death or bronchopulmonary dysplasia or a severe adverse neurological event. In addition, it will explore whether the effect of high-frequency oscillatory ventilation differs by the infant's risk profile, defined by gestational age, intrauterine growth restriction, severity of lung disease at birth and whether or not corticosteroids were given to the mother prior to delivery. Finally, it will explore the importance of effect modifying factors such as the ventilator device, ventilation strategy and the delay to the start of high-frequency ventilation.</p> <p>Discussion</p> <p>An international collaborative group, the PreVILIG Collaboration (Prevention of Ventilator Induced Lung Injury Group), has been formed with the investigators of the original randomized trials to conduct this systematic review. In the field of neonatology, individual patient data meta-analysis has not been used previously. Final results are expected to be available by the end of 2009.</p

Building capacity for evidence generation, synthesis and implementation to improve the care of mothers and babies in South East Asia: methods and design of the SEA-ORCHID Project using a logical framework approach

Background: Rates of maternal and perinatal mortality remain high in developing countries despite the existence of effective interventions. Efforts to strengthen evidence-based approaches to improve health in these settings are partly hindered by restricted access to the best available evidence, limited training in evidence-based practice and concerns about the relevance of existing evidence. South East Asia - Optimising Reproductive and Child Health in Developing Countries (SEA-ORCHID) was a five-year project that aimed to determine whether a multifaceted intervention designed to strengthen the capacity for research synthesis, evidence-based care and knowledge implementation improved clinical practice and led to better health outcomes for mothers and babies. This paper describes the development and design of the SEA-ORCHID intervention plan using a logical framework approach. Methods: SEA-ORCHID used a before-and-after design to evaluate the impact of a multifaceted tailored intervention at nine sites across Thailand, Malaysia, Philippines and Indonesia, supported by three centres in Australia. We used a logical framework approach to systematically prepare and summarise the project plan in a clear and logical way. The development and design of the SEA-ORCHID project was based around the three components of a logical framework (problem analysis, project plan and evaluation strategy). Results: The SEA-ORCHID logical framework defined the project's goal and purpose (To improve the health of mothers and babies in South East Asia and To improve clinical practice in reproductive health in South East Asia), and outlined a series of project objectives and activities designed to achieve these. The logical framework also established outcome and process measures appropriate to each level of the project plan, and guided project work in each of the participating countries and hospitals. Conclusions: Development of a logical framework in the SEA-ORCHID project enabled a reasoned, logical approach to the project design that ensured the project activities would achieve the desired outcomes and that the evaluation plan would assess both the process and outcome of the project. The logical framework was also valuable over the course of the project to facilitate communication, assess progress and build a shared understanding of the project activities, purpose and goal.Steve McDonald, Tari Turner, Catherine Chamberlain, Pisake Lumbiganon, Jadsada Thinkhamrop, Mario R Festin, Jacqueline J Ho, Hakimi Mohammad, David J Henderson-Smart, Jacki Short, Caroline A Crowther, Ruth Martis, Sally Green for the SEA-ORCHID Study Grou

Maternal and perinatal guideline development in hospitals in South East Asia: the experience of the SEA-ORCHID project

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) are commonly used to support practitioners to improve practice. However many studies have raised concerns about guideline quality. The reasons why guidelines are not developed following the established development methods are not clear.</p> <p>The SEA-ORCHID project aims to increase the generation and use of locally relevant research and improve clinical practice in maternal and perinatal care in four countries in South East Asia. Baseline data highlighted that development of evidence-based CPGs according to recommended processes was very rare in the SEA-ORCHID hospitals. The project investigators suggested that there were aspects of the recommended development process that made it very difficult in the participating hospitals.</p> <p>We therefore aimed to explore the experience of guideline development and particularly the enablers of and barriers to developing evidence-based guidelines in the nine hospitals in South East Asia participating in the SEA-ORCHID project, so as to better understand how evidence-based guideline development could be facilitated in these settings.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Semi-structured, face-to-face interviews were undertaken with senior and junior healthcare providers (nurses, midwives, doctors) from the maternal and neonatal services at each of the nine participating hospitals. Interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed and a thematic analysis undertaken.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Seventy-five individual, 25 pair and eleven group interviews were conducted. Participants clearly valued evidence-based guidelines. However they also identified several major barriers to guideline development including time, lack of awareness of process, difficulties searching for evidence and arranging guideline development group meetings, issues with achieving multi-disciplinarity and consumer involvement. They also highlighted the central importance of keeping guidelines up-to-date.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>Healthcare providers in the SEA-ORCHID hospitals face a series of barriers to developing evidence-based guidelines. At present, in many hospitals, several of these barriers are insurmountable, and as a result, rigorous, evidence-based guidelines are not being developed. Given the acknowledged benefits of evidence-based guidelines, perhaps a new approach to supporting their development in these contexts is needed.</p

Caesarean section in four South East Asian countries: reasons for, rates, associated care practices and health outcomes

Background: Caesarean section is a commonly performed operation on women that is globally increasing in prevalence each year. There is a large variation in the rates of caesarean, both in high and low income countries, as well as between different institutions within these countries. This audit aimed to report rates and reasons for caesarean and associated clinical care practices amongst nine hospitals in the four South East Asian countries participating in the South East Asia-Optimising Reproductive and Child Health in Developing countries (SEA-ORCHID) project. Methods: Data on caesarean rates, care practices and health outcomes were collected from the medical records of the 9550 women and their 9665 infants admitted to the nine participating hospitals across South East Asia between January and December 2005. Results: Overall 27% of women had a caesarean section, with rates varying from 19% to 35% between countries and 12% to 39% between hospitals within countries. The most common indications for caesarean were previous caesarean (7.0%), cephalopelvic disproportion (6.3%), malpresentation (4.7%) and fetal distress (3.3%). Neonatal resuscitation rates ranged from 7% to 60% between countries. Prophylactic antibiotics were almost universally given but variations in timing occurred between countries and between hospitals within countries. Conclusion: Rates and reasons for caesarean section and associated clinical care practices and health outcomes varied widely between the four South East Asian countries.Mario R Festin, Malinee Laopaiboon, Porjai Pattanittum, Melissa R Ewens, David J Henderson-Smart and Caroline A Crowther for The SEA-ORCHID Study Grou

Interpreting systematic reviews: are we ready to make our own conclusions? A cross-sectional study

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Independent evaluation of clinical evidence is advocated in evidence-based medicine (EBM). However, authors' conclusions are often appealing for readers who look for quick messages. We assessed how well a group of Malaysian hospital practitioners and medical students derived their own conclusions from systematic reviews (SRs) and to what extent these were influenced by their prior beliefs and the direction of the study results.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>We conducted two cross-sectional studies: one with hospital practitioners (<it>n </it>= 150) attending an EBM course in June 2008 in a tertiary hospital and one with final-year medical students (<it>n </it>= 35) in November 2008. We showed our participants four Cochrane SR abstracts without the authors' conclusions. For each article, the participants chose a conclusion from among six options comprising different combinations of the direction of effect and the strength of the evidence. We predetermined the single option that best reflected the actual authors' conclusions and labelled this as our best conclusion. We compared the participants' choices with our predetermined best conclusions. Two chosen reviews demonstrated that the intervention was beneficial ("positive"), and two others did not ("negative"). We also asked the participants their prior beliefs about the intervention.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Overall, 60.3% correctly identified the direction of effect, and 30.1% chose the best conclusions, having identified both the direction of effect and the strength of evidence. More students (48.2%) than practitioners (22.2%) chose the best conclusions (<it>P </it>< 0.001). Fewer than one-half (47%) correctly identified the direction of effect against their prior beliefs. "Positive" SRs were more likely than "negative" SRs to change the participants' beliefs about the effect of the intervention (relative risk (RR) 1.8, 95% confidence interval 1.3 to 2.6) and "convert" those who were previously unsure by making them choose the appropriate direction of effect (RR 1.9, 95% confidence interval 1.3 to 2.8).</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>The majority of our participants could not generate appropriate conclusions from SRs independently. Judicious direction from the authors' conclusions still appears crucial to guiding our health care practitioners in identifying appropriate messages from research. Authors, editors and reviewers should ensure that the conclusions of a paper accurately reflect the results. Similar studies should be conducted in other settings where awareness and application of EBM are different.</p> <p>Please see Commentary: <url>http://www.biomedcentral.com/1741-7015/9/31/</url>.</p

Developing evidence-based clinical practice guidelines in hospitals in Australia, Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines and Thailand: values, requirements and barriers

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Evidence-based clinical practice guidelines support clinical decision-making by making recommendations to guide clinical practice. These recommendations are developed by integrating the expertise of a multidisciplinary group of clinicians with the perspectives of consumers and the best available research evidence. However studies have raised concerns about the quality of guideline development, and particularly the link between research and recommendations. The reasons why guideline developers are not following the established development methods are not clear.</p> <p>We aimed to explore the barriers to developing evidence-based guidelines in eleven hospitals in Australia, Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines and Thailand, so as to better understand how evidence-based guideline development could be facilitated in these settings. The research aimed to identify the value clinicians place on guidelines, what clinicians want in guidelines developed in hospital settings and what factors limit rigorous evidence-based guideline development in these settings.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Semi-structured, face-to-face interviews were undertaken with senior and junior healthcare providers (nurses, midwives, doctors, allied health) from the maternal and neonatal services of the eleven participating hospitals. Interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed and a thematic analysis undertaken.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Ninety-three individual, 25 pair and eleven group interviews were conducted. Participants were clear that they want guidelines that are based on evidence and updated regularly. They were also clear that there are major barriers to this. Most of the barriers were shared across countries, and included lack of time, lack of skills in finding, appraising and interpreting evidence, lack of access to relevant evidence and difficulty arranging meetings and achieving consensus.</p> <p>Barriers that were primarily identified in Australian hospitals include cumbersome organisational processes and a feeling that guidelines are being developed for bureaucratic ends. Barriers that were primarily identified in South East Asian hospitals include difficulty accessing evidence due to limited resources available for computers, internet and journal subscriptions and limited skills in computing and English.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>The clinicians in these eleven very different hospitals want evidence-based guidelines. However they are frustrated by guideline development processes that are enormously time, skill and resource intensive. They feel strongly that "there's got to be a better way".</p> <p>The fact that the great majority of the identified barriers were shared across settings may provide an opportunity to develop a more pragmatic way of developing guidelines that can be applied in many contexts.</p

The place and barriers of evidence based practice: knowledge and perceptions of medical, nursing and allied health practitioners in malaysia

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Despite a recent increase in activities to promote evidence-based practice (EBP), it was unclear how Malaysian hospital practitioners received this new approach in medicine. This study examines their confidence and perceptions on EBP.</p> <p>Findings</p> <p>We conducted cross-sectional surveys using a self-administered questionnaire during two EBP training courses in two Malaysian hospitals in January and June 2007. Our subjects (n = 144) were doctors and nursing and allied health staff (NAH) participating in the EBP courses. Our questionnaire covered three domains: confidence and understanding (six items), attitude (five items) and barriers to practice (four items). We presented simple descriptive statistics, including the sum ratings and the proportions with different responses for each item, and compared different groups using Mann-Whitney U test for scaled ratings and Chi-square test for dichotomous responses.</p> <p>Ninety-two doctors and 52 NAH staff completed the surveys. Overall, doctors expressed slightly higher confidence on EBP compared to NAH staff. Out of a maximum sum rating of 27 over six items, doctors reported an average of 18.3 (SD 3.2) and NAH staff reported an average of 16.0 (SD 3.4), p = 0.002. Doctors were also more positive in their views on EBP. For example, 67.4% of doctors disagreed, but 61% of NAH staff agreed that "the importance of EBP in patient care is exaggerated", and 79.3% of doctors disagreed, but 46.2% of NAH staff agreed that "EBP is too tedious and impractical". Similar responses were observed for other items in the domain.</p> <p>Doctors and NAH staff shared similar concerns on barriers to evidence-based practice. The highest proportions considered poor facilities to access evidence a barrier (76% of doctors and 90% of NAH), followed by poor awareness of evidence (62% of doctors and 70% of NAH) and time constraints (63% of doctors and 68% of NAH), p = 0.09 for the combined rating of four items in the domain.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>The findings of our survey suggest a need for greater efforts in promoting EBP among Malaysian hospital practitioners especially for NAH staff. From the responses based on the barriers to EBP, improving facilities for accessing evidence and promoting more user-friendly resources to address time constraints appear to be the priorities.</p

The VICI-trial: high frequency oscillation versus conventional mechanical ventilation in newborns with congenital diaphragmatic hernia: an international multicentre randomized controlled trial

Background: Congenital diaphragmatic hernia (CDH) is a severe congenital anomaly of the diaphragm resulting in pulmonary hypoplasia and pulmonary hypertension. It is associated with a high risk of mortality and pulmonary morbidity. Previous retrospective studies have reported high frequency oscillatory ventilation (HFO) to reduce pulmonary morbidity in infants with CDH, while others indicated HFO to be associated with worse outcome. We therefore aimed to develop a randomized controlled trial to compare initial ventilatory treatment with high-frequency oscillation and conventional ventilation in infants with CDH.Methods/design: This trial is designed as a multicentre trial in which 400 infants (200 in each arm) will be included. Primary outcome measures are BPD, described as oxygen dependency by day 28 according to the definition of Jobe and Bancalari, and/or mortality by day 28. All liveborn infants with CDH born at a gestational age of over 34 weeks and no other severe congenital anomalies are eligible for inclusion. Parental informed consent is asked antenatally and the allocated ventilation mode starts within two hours after birth. Laboratory samples of blood, urine and tracheal aspirate are taken at the first day of life, day 3, day 7, day 14 and day 28 to evaluate laboratory markers for ventilator-induced lung injury and pulmonary hypertension.Discussion: To date, randomized clinical trials are lacking in the field of CDH. The VICI-trial, as the first randomized clinical trial in the field of CDH, may provide further insight in ventilation strategies in CDH patient. This may hopefully prevent mortality and morbidity.Trial registration: Netherlands Trial Register (NTR): NTR1310