New opportunities and untapped scientific potential in the abyssal ocean

© The Author(s), 2022. This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License. The definitive version was published in Marlow, J., Anderson, R., Reysenbach, A.-L., Seewald, J., Shank, T., Teske, A., Wanless, V., & Soule, S. New opportunities and untapped scientific potential in the abyssal ocean. Frontiers in Marine Science, 8, (2022): 798943, https://doi.org/10.3389./fmars.2021.798943The abyssal ocean covers more than half of the Earth’s surface, yet remains understudied and underappreciated. In this Perspectives article, we mark the occasion of the Deep Submergence Vehicle Alvin’s increased depth range (from 4500 to 6500 m) to highlight the scientific potential of the abyssal seafloor. From a geologic perspective, ultra-slow spreading mid-ocean ridges, Petit Spot volcanism, transform faults, and subduction zones put the full life cycle of oceanic crust on display in the abyss, revealing constructive and destructive forces over wide ranges in time and space. Geochemically, the abyssal pressure regime influences the solubility of constituents such as silica and carbonate, and extremely high-temperature fluid-rock reactions in the shallow subsurface lead to distinctive and potentially unique geochemical profiles. Microbial residents range from low-abundance, low-energy communities on the abyssal plains to fast growing thermophiles at hydrothermal vents. Given its spatial extent and position as an intermediate zone between coastal and deep hadal settings, the abyss represents a lynchpin in global-scale processes such as nutrient and energy flux, population structure, and biogeographic diversity. Taken together, the abyssal ocean contributes critical ecosystem services while facing acute and diffuse anthropogenic threats from deep-sea mining, pollution, and climate change.We would like to thank the National Science Foundation for their support through grants NSF 2009117 and 2129431 to SAS

Prigodom 60-godišnjice zadružne mlekarne u Škofjoj Loki

Background The Parent Report of Children's Abilities–Revised (PARCA-R) can be used to identify preterm born children at risk for developmental delay at age 24 months. However, standardised scores for assessing all children in the general population and quantifying development relative to the norm are unavailable, thus limiting the use of the questionnaire. We aimed to develop scores that are standardised by age and sex for the PARCA-R to assess children's cognitive and language development at age 24–27 months. Methods Anonymised data from PARCA-R questionnaires that were completed by parents of 2-year-old children in three previous studies were obtained to form a standardisation sample that was representative of the UK general population. Anonymised data were obtained from three further studies to assess the external validity and clinical validity of the standardised scores. We used the lambda-mu-sigma (lambda for skewness, mu for median, sigma for the coefficient of variation) method to develop scores that are standardised by age and sex for three scales (non-verbal cognitive development, language development, and total parent report composite [PRC]) for children in four 1-month age bands, spanning age 23·5–27·5 months. Findings We included 6402 children (mean age 25 months and 1 day [range 23 months and 16 days to 27 months and 15 days]) in the standardisation sample and 709 (mean age 24 months and 19 days [23 months and 16 days to 27 months and 15 days]) to test the external validity and 1456 (mean age 24 months and 8·5 days [23 months and 16 days to 27 months and 15 days]) to test the clinical validity of the standardised scores. For all PARCA-R scales, mean standardised scores approximated 100 (SD 15) in both sexes and all age groups. These scores were independent of socioeconomic status. Standardised scores were close to 100 (15) in the external validation sample, showing the validity of the scores. Standardised scores for the total PRC scale for children born very preterm (<32 weeks' gestation) were 0·47 SD lower on average than the normative mean, and for children with neonatal sepsis were 0·73 SD lower on average than the normative mean. These scores were equivalent to a standardised score of 93 (95% CI 91–94) for children born very preterm and 89 (88–91) for children with neonatal sepsis, thus showing clinical validity. Interpretation The PARCA-R provides a norm-referenced, standardised assessment of cognitive and language development at 24–27 months of age. The questionnaire is available non-commercially in English with translations available in 14 other languages, thus providing clinicians and researchers with a cost-effective tool for assessing development and identifying children with delay

Two-year follow-up of infant and maternal outcomes after planned early delivery or expectant management for late preterm pre-eclampsia (PHOENIX): a randomised controlled trial

OBJECTIVE: We evaluated the best time to initiate delivery in late preterm pre-eclampsia in order to optimise long-term infant and maternal outcomes. DESIGN: Parallel-group, non-masked, randomised controlled trial SETTING: 46 UK maternity units POPULATION: Women with pre-eclampsia between 34+0 and 36+6 weeks' gestation, without severe disease, were randomised to planned delivery or expectant management. PRIMARY LONG-TERM OUTCOME: Infant neurodevelopmental outcome at 2 years of age, using the PARCA-R (Parent Report of Children's Abilities-Revised) composite score. RESULTS: Between Sept 29, 2014, and Dec 10, 2018, 901 women were enrolled in the trial, with 450 allocated to planned delivery and 451 to expectant management. At 2-year follow-up, the intention-to-treat analysis population included 276 women (290 infants) allocated to planned delivery and 251 women (256 infants) to expectant management. The mean composite standardised PARCA-R scores were 89.5 (standard deviation (SD) 18.2) in the planned delivery group and 91.9 (SD 18.4) in the expectant management group, with an adjusted mean difference of -2.4 (95% CI -5.4 to 0.5) points. CONCLUSION: In infants of women with late preterm pre-eclampsia, average neurodevelopmental assessment at 2 years lies within the normal range, regardless of whether planned delivery or expectant management is pursued. Because of lower than anticipated follow-up, there was limited power to demonstrate these scores were not different, but the small between-group difference in PARCA-R scores is unlikely to be clinically important

Effects of Hypothermia for Perinatal Asphyxia on Childhood Outcomes

BACKGROUND: In the Total Body Hypothermia for Neonatal Encephalopathy Trial (TOBY), newborns with asphyxial encephalopathy who received hypothermic therapy had improved neurologic outcomes at 18 months of age, but it is uncertain whether such therapy results in longer-term neurocognitive benefits. METHODS: We randomly assigned 325 newborns with asphyxial encephalopathy who were born at a gestational age of 36 weeks or more to receive standard care alone (control) or standard care with hypothermia to a rectal temperature of 33 to 34°C for 72 hours within 6 hours after birth. We evaluated the neurocognitive function of these children at 6 to 7 years of age. The primary outcome of this analysis was the frequency of survival with an IQ score of 85 or higher. RESULTS: A total of 75 of 145 children (52%) in the hypothermia group versus 52 of 132 (39%) in the control group survived with an IQ score of 85 or more (relative risk, 1.31; P=0.04). The proportions of children who died were similar in the hypothermia group and the control group (29% and 30%, respectively). More children in the hypothermia group than in the control group survived without neurologic abnormalities (65 of 145 [45%] vs. 37 of 132 [28%]; relative risk, 1.60; 95% confidence interval, 1.15 to 2.22). Among survivors, children in the hypothermia group, as compared with those in the control group, had significant reductions in the risk of cerebral palsy (21% vs. 36%, P=0.03) and the risk of moderate or severe disability (22% vs. 37%, P=0.03); they also had significantly better motor-function scores. There was no significant between-group difference in parental assessments of children's health status and in results on 10 of 11 psychometric tests. CONCLUSIONS: Moderate hypothermia after perinatal asphyxia resulted in improved neurocognitive outcomes in middle childhood. Copyright © 2014 Massachusetts Medical Society

Antenatal detection of large-for-gestational-age fetuses following implementation of the Growth Assessment Protocol: secondary analysis of a randomised control trial

OBJECTIVE: To determine whether the Growth Assessment Protocol (GAP) affects the antenatal detection of large for gestational age (LGA) or maternal and perinatal outcomes amongst LGA babies. DESIGN: Secondary analysis of a pragmatic open randomised cluster control trial comparing the GAP with standard care. SETTING: Eleven UK maternity units. POPULATION: Pregnant women and their LGA babies born at ≥36+0  weeks of gestation. METHODS: Clusters were randomly allocated to GAP implementation or standard care. Data were collected from electronic patient records. Trial arms were compared using summary statistics, with unadjusted and adjusted (two-stage cluster summary approach) differences. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Rate of detection of LGA (estimated fetal weight on ultrasound scan above the 90th centile after 34+0  weeks of gestation, defined by either population or customised growth charts), maternal and perinatal outcomes (e.g. mode of birth, postpartum haemorrhage, severe perineal tears, birthweight and gestational age, neonatal unit admission, perinatal mortality, and neonatal morbidity and mortality). RESULTS: A total of 506 LGA babies were exposed to GAP and 618 babies received standard care. There were no significant differences in the rate of LGA detection (GAP 38.0% vs standard care 48.0%; adjusted effect size -4.9%; 95% CI -20.5, 10.7; p = 0.54), nor in any of the maternal or perinatal outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: The use of GAP did not change the rate of antenatal ultrasound detection of LGA when compared with standard care

Cost-Utility Analysis of Planned Early Delivery or Expectant Management for Late Preterm Pre-eclampsia (PHOENIX)

Aim: There is currently limited evidence on the costs associated with late preterm pre-eclampsia beyond antenatal care and post-natal discharge from hospital. The aim of this analysis is to evaluate the 24-month cost-utility of planned delivery for women with late preterm pre-eclampsia at 34+0–36+6 weeks’ gestation compared to expectant management from an English National Health Service perspective using participant-level data from the PHOENIX trial. Methods: Women between 34+0 and 36+6 weeks’ gestation in 46 maternity units in England and Wales were individually randomised to planned delivery or expectant management. Resource use was collected from hospital records between randomisation and primary hospital discharge following birth. Women were followed up at 6 months and 24 months following birth and self-reported resource use for themselves and their infant(s) covering the previous 6 months. Women completed the EQ-5D 5L at randomisation and follow-up. Results: A total of 450 women were randomised to planned delivery, 451 to expectant management: 187 and 170 women, respectively, had complete data at 24 months. Planned delivery resulted in a significantly lower mean cost per woman and infant(s) over 24 months (− £2711, 95% confidence interval (CI) − 4840 to − 637), with a mean incremental difference in QALYs of 0.019 (95% CI − 0.039 to 0.063). Short-term and 24-month infant costs were not significantly different between the intervention arms. There is a 99% probability that planned delivery is cost-effective at all thresholds below £37,000 per QALY gained. Conclusion: There is a high probability that planned delivery is cost-effective compared to expectant management. These results need to be considered alongside clinical outcomes and in the wider context of maternity care. Trial registration: ISRCTN registry ISRCTN01879376. Registered 25 November 2013

Planned delivery or expectant management for late preterm pre-eclampsia:study protocol for a randomised controlled trial (PHOENIX trial)

Abstract Background Pre-eclampsia is a pregnancy disorder, characterised by hypertension and multisystem complications in the mother. The adverse outcomes of pre-eclampsia include severe hypertension, stroke, renal and hepatic injury, haemorrhage, fetal growth restriction and even death. The optimal time to instigate delivery to prevent morbidity when pre-eclampsia occurs between 34 and 37 weeks’ gestation, without increasing problems related to infant immaturity or complications, remains unclear. Methods/design The PHOENIX trial is a non-masked, randomised controlled trial, comparing planned early delivery (with initiation of delivery within 48 h of randomisation) with usual care (expectant management) in women with pre-eclampsia between 34+ 0 and 36+ 6 weeks’ gestation. The primary objectives of the trial are to determine if planned delivery reduces adverse maternal outcomes, without increasing the short-term harm to infants (composite of perinatal deaths or neonatal unit admissions up to infant hospital discharge) or impacting long-term infant neurodevelopmental status at 2 years corrected age (Parent Report of Cognitive Abilities-Revised). Discussion Current practice in the UK at the time of trial commencement for management of pre-eclampsia varies by gestation. Previous trials have shown that in women with pre-eclampsia after 37 weeks of gestion, delivery is initiated, as maternal complications are reduced without increasing fetal risks. Prior to 34 weeks of gestation, usual management aims to prolong pregnancy for fetal benefit, unless severe complications occur, necessitating preterm delivery. This trial aims to address the uncertainty for women where the balance of benefits and risks of delivery compared to expectant management are uncertain. Previous trials in this area have been undertaken, but have not provided a definitive answer, and the research question remains active. The results of this trial are expected to influence clinical practice internationally, through direct adoption and by incorporation into guidelines in countries with similar settings. Trial registration ISRCTN01879376. Registered on 25 November 2013

Two-year follow-up of infant and maternal outcomes after planned early delivery or expectant management for late preterm pre-eclampsia (PHOENIX): A randomised controlled trial

ObjectiveWe evaluated the best time to initiate delivery in late preterm pre-eclampsia in order to optimise long-term infant and maternal outcomes.DesignParallel-group, non-masked, randomised controlled trial.SettingForty-six maternity units in the UK.PopulationWomen with pre-eclampsia between 34+0 and 36+6 weeks of gestation, without severe disease, were randomised to planned delivery or expectant management.Main outcome measuresInfant neurodevelopmental outcome at 2 years of age, using the Parent Report of Children’s Abilities – Revised (PARCA-R) composite score.ResultsBetween 29 September 2014 and 10 December 2018, 901 women were enrolled in the trial, with 450 women allocated to planned delivery and 451 women allocated to expectant management. At the 2-year follow-up, the intention-to-treat analysis population included 276 women (290 infants) allocated to planned delivery and 251 women (256 infants) allocated to expectant management. The mean composite standardised PARCA-R scores were 89.5 (SD 18.2) in the planned delivery group and 91.9 (SD 18.4) in the expectant management group, with an adjusted mean difference of −2.4 points (95% CI −5.4 to 0.5 points).ConclusionsIn infants of women with late preterm pre-eclampsia, the average neurodevelopmental assessment at 2 years lies within the normal range, regardless of whether planned delivery or expectant management was pursued. With the lower than anticipated follow-up rate there was limited power to demonstrate that these scores did not differ, but the small between-group difference in PARCA-R scores is unlikely to be clinically important

Protocol for the development of a core indicator set for reporting burn wound infection in trials:ICon-B study

INTRODUCTION: Systematic reviews of high-quality randomised controlled trials are necessary to identify effective interventions to impact burn wound infection (BWI) outcomes. Evidence synthesis requires that BWI is reported in a consistent manner. Cochrane reviews investigating interventions for burns report that the indicators used to diagnose BWI are variable or not described, indicating a need to standardise reporting. BWI is complex and diagnosed by clinician judgement, informed by patient-reported symptoms, clinical signs, serum markers of inflammation and bacteria in the wound. Indicators for reporting BWI should be important for diagnosis, frequently observed in patients with BWI and assessed as part of routine healthcare. A minimum (core) set of indicators of BWI, reported consistently, will facilitate evidence synthesis and support clinical decision-making.AIMS: The Infection Consensus in Burns study aims to identify a core indicator set for reporting the diagnosis of BWI in research studies.METHODS: (1) Evidence review: a systematic review of indicators used in trials and observational studies reporting BWI outcomes to identify a long list of candidate indicators; (2) refinement of the long list into a smaller set of survey questions with an expert steering group; (3) a two-round Delphi survey with 100 multidisciplinary expert stakeholders, to achieve consensus on a short list of indicators; (4) a consensus meeting with expert stakeholders to agree on the BWI core indicator set.ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Participants will be recruited through professional bodies, such that ethical approval from the National Health Service (NHS) Health Research Authority (HRA) is not needed. The core indicator set will be disseminated through peer-reviewed publication, co-production with journal editors, research funders and professional bodies, and presentation at national conferences.PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42018096647.</p

Effect of the Growth Assessment Protocol on the DEtection of Small for GestatioNal age fetus: process evaluation from the DESiGN cluster randomised trial

BACKGROUND: Reducing the rate of stillbirth is an international priority. At least half of babies stillborn in high-income countries are small for gestational-age (SGA). The Growth Assessment Protocol (GAP), a complex antenatal intervention that aims to increase the rate of antenatal detection of SGA, was evaluated in the DESiGN type 2 hybrid effectiveness-implementation cluster randomised trial (n = 13 clusters). In this paper, we present the trial process evaluation. METHODS: A mixed-methods process evaluation was conducted. Clinical leads and frontline healthcare professionals were interviewed to inform understanding of context (implementing and standard care sites) and GAP implementation (implementing sites). Thematic analysis of interview text used the context and implementation of complex interventions framework to understand acceptability, feasibility, and the impact of context. A review of implementing cluster clinical guidelines, training and maternity records was conducted to assess fidelity, dose and reach. RESULTS: Interviews were conducted with 28 clinical leads and 27 frontline healthcare professionals across 11 sites. Staff at implementing sites generally found GAP to be acceptable but raised issues of feasibility, caused by conflicting demands on resource, and variable beliefs among clinical leaders regarding the intervention value. GAP was implemented with variable fidelity (concordance of local guidelines to GAP was high at two sites, moderate at two and low at one site), all sites achieved the target to train > 75% staff using face-to-face methods, but only one site trained > 75% staff using e-learning methods; a median of 84% (range 78–87%) of women were correctly risk stratified at the five implementing sites. Most sites achieved high scores for reach (median 94%, range 62–98% of women had a customised growth chart), but generally, low scores for dose (median 31%, range 8–53% of low-risk women and median 5%, range 0–17% of high-risk women) were monitored for SGA as recommended. CONCLUSIONS: Implementation of GAP was generally acceptable to staff but with issues of feasibility that are likely to have contributed to variation in implementation strength. Leadership and resourcing are fundamental to effective implementation of clinical service changes, even when such changes are well aligned to policy mandated service-change priorities. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Primary registry and trial identifying number: ISRCTN 67698474. Registered 02/11/16. https://doi.org/10.1186/ISRCTN67698474