Early removal versus expectant management of central venous catheters in neonates with bloodstream infection

BACKGROUND: Uncertainty exists regarding the management of newborn infants with a bloodstream infection and a central venous catheter in place. The central venous catheter may act as a nidus for infecting organisms and observational studies have suggested that early removal of the catheter is associated with a lower incidence of persistent or complicated infection. However, since central venous catheters provide secure vascular access to deliver nutrition and medications, the possible harms of early removal versus expectant management also need to be considered. OBJECTIVES: To determine the effect of early removal versus expectant management of central venous catheters on morbidity and mortality in newborn infants with bloodstream infections. SEARCH METHODS: We used the standard search strategy of the Cochrane Neonatal Review Group. This included searches of the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL 2015, Issue 11), MEDLINE (1966 to October 2015), EMBASE (1980 to October 2015), CINAHL (1982 to October 2015), conference proceedings and previous reviews. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials that compared early removal versus expectant management of central venous catheters in neonates with bloodstream infections. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used the standard methods of the Cochrane Neonatal Review Group. MAIN RESULTS: We did not identify any eligible randomised controlled trials. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There are no trial data to guide practice regarding early removal versus expectant management of central venous catheters in newborn infants with bloodstream infections. A simple and pragmatic randomised controlled trial is needed to resolve the uncertainty about optimal management in this common and important clinical scenario

Slow advancement of enteral feed volumes to prevent necrotising enterocolitis in very low birth weight infants

BACKGROUND: Early enteral feeding practices are potentially modifiable risk factors for necrotising enterocolitis (NEC) in very preterm or very low birth weight (VLBW) infants. Observational studies suggest that conservative feeding regimens, including slowly advancing enteral feed volumes, reduce the risk of NEC. However, slow feed advancement may delay establishment of full enteral feeding and may be associated with metabolic and infectious morbidities secondary to prolonged exposure to parenteral nutrition. OBJECTIVES: To determine effects of slow rates of enteral feed advancement on the incidence of NEC, mortality, and other morbidities in very preterm or VLBW infants. SEARCH METHODS: We used the standard Cochrane Neonatal search strategy to search the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2017, Issue 5), MEDLINE via PubMed (1966 to June 2017), Embase (1980 to June 2017), and the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL; 1982 to June 2017). We searched clinical trials databases, conference proceedings, previous reviews, and reference lists of retrieved articles for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-randomised trials. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised or quasi-randomised controlled trials that assessed effects of slow (up to 24 mL/kg/d) versus faster rates of advancement of enteral feed volumes upon the incidence of NEC in very preterm or VLBW infants. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors assessed trial eligibility and risk of bias and independently extracted data. We analysed treatment effects in individual trials and reported risk ratio (RR) and risk difference (RD) for dichotomous data, and mean difference (MD) for continuous data, with respective 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We used a fixed-effect model for meta-analyses and explored potential causes of heterogeneity via sensitivity analyses. We assessed the quality of evidence at the outcome level using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. MAIN RESULTS: We identified 10 RCTs in which a total of 3753 infants participated (2804 infants participated in one large trial). Most participants were stable very preterm infants of birth weight appropriate for gestation. About one-third of all participants were extremely preterm or extremely low birth weight (ELBW), and about one-fifth were small for gestational age (SGA), growth-restricted, or compromised in utero, as indicated by absent or reversed end-diastolic flow velocity (AREDFV) in the fetal umbilical artery. Trials typically defined slow advancement as daily increments of 15 to 20 mL/kg, and faster advancement as daily increments of 30 to 40 mL/kg. Trials generally were of good methodological quality, although none was blinded.Meta-analyses did not show effects on risk of NEC (typical RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.39; RD 0.0, 95% CI -0.01 to 0.02) or all-cause mortality (typical RR 1.15, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.42; typical RD 0.01, 95% CI -0.01 to 0.03). Subgroup analyses of extremely preterm or ELBW infants, or of SGA or growth-restricted or growth-compromised infants, showed no evidence of an effect on risk of NEC or death. Slow feed advancement delayed establishment of full enteral nutrition by between about one and five days. Meta-analysis showed borderline increased risk of invasive infection (typical RR 1.15, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.32; typical RD 0.03, 95% CI 0.00 to 0.05). The GRADE quality of evidence for primary outcomes was "moderate", downgraded from "high" because of lack of blinding in the included trials. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Available trial data do not provide evidence that advancing enteral feed volumes at daily increments of 15 to 20 mL/kg (compared with 30 to 40 mL/kg) reduces the risk of NEC or death in very preterm or VLBW infants, extremely preterm or ELBW infants, SGA or growth-restricted infants, or infants with antenatal AREDFV. Advancing the volume of enteral feeds at a slow rate results in several days of delay in establishing full enteral feeds and may increase the risk of invasive infection

Prebiotics to prevent necrotising enterocolitis in very preterm or very low birth weight infants

BACKGROUND: Dietary supplementation with prebiotic oligosaccharides to modulate the intestinal microbiome has been proposed as a strategy to reduce the risk of necrotising enterocolitis (NEC) and associated mortality and morbidity in very preterm or very low birth weight (VLBW) infants. OBJECTIVES: To assess the benefits and harms of enteral supplementation with prebiotics (versus placebo or no treatment) for preventing NEC and associated morbidity and mortality in very preterm or VLBW infants. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, the Maternity and Infant Care database and the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), from the earliest records to July 2022. We searched clinical trials databases and conference proceedings, and examined the reference lists of retrieved articles. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs comparing prebiotics with placebo or no prebiotics in very preterm ( 48 hours after birth) invasive infection, duration of hospitalisation, and neurodevelopmental impairment. We used the GRADE approach to assess the level of certainty of the evidence. MAIN RESULTS: We included seven trials in which a total of 705 infants participated. All the trials were small (mean sample size 100). Lack of clarity on methods to conceal allocation and mask caregivers or investigators were potential sources of bias in three of the trials. The studied prebiotics were fructo- and galacto-oligosaccharides, inulin, and lactulose, typically administered daily with enteral feeds during birth hospitalisation. Meta-analyses of data from seven trials (686 infants) suggest that prebiotics may result in little or no difference in NEC (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.60 to 1.56; RD none fewer per 1000, 95% CI 50 fewer to 40 more; low-certainty evidence), all-cause mortality (RR 0.43, 95% CI 0.20 to 0.92; 40 per 1000 fewer, 95% CI 70 fewer to none fewer; low-certainty evidence), or late-onset invasive infection (RR 0.79, 95% CI 0.60 to 1.06; 50 per 1000 fewer, 95% CI 100 fewer to 10 more; low-certainty evidence) prior to hospital discharge. The certainty of this evidence is low because of concerns about the risk of bias in some trials and the imprecision of the effect size estimates. The data available from one trial provided only very low-certainty evidence about the effect of prebiotics on measures of neurodevelopmental impairment (Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID) Mental Development Index score < 85: RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.25 to 2.90; very low-certainty evidence; BSID Psychomotor Development Index score < 85: RR 0.24, 95% 0.03 to 2.00; very low-certainty evidence; cerebral palsy: RR 0.35, 95% CI 0.01 to 8.35; very low-certainty evidence). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The available trial data provide low-certainty evidence about the effects of prebiotics on the risk of NEC, all-cause mortality before discharge, and invasive infection, and very low-certainty evidence about the effect on neurodevelopmental impairment for very preterm or VLBW infants. Our confidence in the effect estimates is limited; the true effects may be substantially different. Large, high-quality trials are needed to provide evidence of sufficient validity to inform policy and practice decisions

Treating extravasation injuries in infants and young children : a scoping review and survey of UK NHS practice

BACKGROUND: Extravasation injuries are caused by unintended leakages of fluids or medicines from intravenous lines but there is no consensus on the best treatment approaches, particularly in infants and young children. METHODS: This paper presents a more succinct account of a study of treatments for extravasation injuries in infants and children which has also been reported in full as an NIHR HTA report. A systematic scoping review and survey of UK NHS practice were undertaken. Twelve databases - including MEDLINE and EMBASE - were searched for relevant studies in February 2017. Studies of children with extravasation injuries receiving any treatment for extravasation injury were eligible, providing they reported one of the following outcomes: wound healing time, infection, pain, scarring, functional impairment, and requirement for surgery. Studies were screened in duplicate. Data were extracted by one researcher and checked by another. Studies were summarised narratively. An online questionnaire was distributed to NHS staff at neonatal units, paediatric intensive care units and principal oncology/haematology units. RESULTS: The evidence identified in the scoping review was mostly comprised of small, retrospective, uncontrolled group studies or case reports. The studies covered a wide range of interventions including conservative management approaches, saline flush-out techniques (with or without prior hyaluronidase), hyaluronidase without flush-out, artificial skin treatments, debridement and plastic surgery. Few studies graded injury severity and the results sections and outcomes reported in most studies were limited. There was heterogeneity across study populations in many factors. The survey yielded 63 responses from hospital units across the UK. Results indicated that although most units had written documentation for treating extravasation injuries, only one-third of documents included a system for grading injury severity. The most frequently used interventions were elevation of the affected area and analgesics. Saline wash-out treatments, either with or without hyaluronidase, were regularly used in about half of all neonatal units. Most responders thought a randomised controlled trial might be a viable future research design. CONCLUSIONS: There is some uncertainty about which are most the promising treatments for extravasation injuries in infants and young children. Saline flush-out techniques and conservative management approaches are commonly used and may be suitable for evaluation in trials. Although conventional randomised trials may be difficult to perform a randomised registry trial may be an appropriate alternative design

Treatment of extravasation injuries in infants and young children : a scoping review and survey

BACKGROUND: Extravasation injuries are caused by unintended leakages of fluids or medicines from intravenous lines, but there is no consensus on the best treatment approaches. OBJECTIVES: To identify which treatments may be best for treating extravasation injuries in infants and young children. DESIGN: Scoping review and survey of practice. POPULATION: Children aged < 18 years with extravasation injuries and NHS staff who treat children with extravasation injuries. INTERVENTIONS: Any treatment for extravasation injury. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Wound healing time, infection, pain, scarring, functional impairment, requirement for surgery. DATA SOURCES: Twelve database searches were carried out in February 2017 without date restrictions, including MEDLINE, CINAHL (Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature) Plus and EMBASE (Excerpta Medica dataBASE). METHODS: Scoping review - studies were screened in duplicate. Data were extracted by one researcher and checked by another. Studies were grouped by design, and then by intervention, with details summarised narratively and in tables. The survey questionnaire was distributed to NHS staff at neonatal units, paediatric intensive care units and principal oncology/haematology units. Summary results were presented narratively and in tables and figures. RESULTS: The evidence identified in the scoping review mostly comprised small, retrospective, uncontrolled group studies or case reports. The studies covered a wide range of interventions including conservative management approaches, saline flush-out techniques (with or without prior hyaluronidase), hyaluronidase (without flush-out), artificial skin treatments, debridement and plastic surgery. Few studies graded injury severity and the results sections and outcomes reported in most studies were limited. There was heterogeneity across study populations in age, types of infusate, injury severity, location of injury and the time gaps between injury identification and subsequent treatment. Some of the better evidence related to studies of flush-out techniques. The NHS survey yielded 63 responses from hospital units across the UK. Results indicated that, although most units had a written protocol or guideline for treating extravasation injuries, only one-third of documents included a staging system for grading injury severity. In neonatal units, parenteral nutrition caused most extravasation injuries. In principal oncology/haematology units, most injuries were due to vesicant chemotherapies. The most frequently used interventions were elevation of the affected area and analgesics. Warm or cold compresses were rarely used. Saline flush-out treatments, either with or without hyaluronidase, were regularly used in about half of all neonatal units. Most responders thought a randomised controlled trial might be a viable future research design, though opinions varied greatly by setting. LIMITATIONS: Paucity of good-quality studies. CONCLUSIONS: There is uncertainty about which treatments are most promising, particularly with respect to treating earlier-stage injuries. Saline flush-out techniques and conservative management approaches are commonly used and may be suitable for evaluation in trials. FUTURE WORK: Conventional randomised trials may be difficult to perform, although a randomised registry trial may be an appropriate alternative. FUNDING: The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme

Early full enteral feeding for preterm or low birth weight infants

BACKGROUND: The introduction and advancement of enteral feeds for preterm or low birth weight infants is often delayed because of concerns that early full enteral feeding will not be well tolerated or may increase the risk of necrotising enterocolitis. Early full enteral feeding, however, might increase nutrient intake and growth rates; accelerate intestinal physiological, metabolic, and microbiomic postnatal transition; and reduce the risk of complications associated with intravascular devices for fluid administration. OBJECTIVES: To determine how early full enteral feeding, compared with delayed or progressive introduction of enteral feeds, affects growth and adverse events such as necrotising enterocolitis, in preterm or low birth weight infants. SEARCH METHODS: We used the standard search strategy of Cochrane Neonatal to search Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials; MEDLINE Ovid, Embase Ovid, Maternity & Infant Care Database Ovid, the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, and clinical trials databases, conference proceedings, and the reference lists of retrieved articles for randomised controlled trials and quasi-randomised trials to October 2020. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials that compared early full enteral feeding with delayed or progressive introduction of enteral feeds in preterm or low birth weight infants. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used the standard methods of Cochrane Neonatal. Two review authors separately assessed trial eligibility, evaluated trial quality, extracted data, and synthesised effect estimates using risk ratios (RR), risk differences, and mean differences (MD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). We used the GRADE approach to assess the certainty of evidence. MAIN RESULTS: We included six trials. All were undertaken in the 2010s in neonatal care facilities in India. In total, 526 infants participated. Most were very preterm infants of birth weight between 1000 g and 1500 g. Trials were of good methodological quality, but a potential source of bias was that parents, clinicians, and investigators were not masked. The trials compared early full feeding (60 mL/kg to 80 mL/kg on day one after birth) with minimal enteral feeding (typically 20 mL/kg on day one) supplemented with intravenous fluids. Feed volumes were advanced daily as tolerated by 20 mL/kg to 30 mL/kg body weight to a target steady-state volume of 150 mL/kg to 180 mL/kg/day. All participating infants were fed preferentially with maternal expressed breast milk, with two trials supplementing insufficient volumes with donor breast milk and four supplementing with preterm formula. Few data were available to assess growth parameters. One trial (64 participants) reported a slower rate of weight gain (median difference -3.0 g/kg/day), and another (180 participants) reported a faster rate of weight gain in the early full enteral feeding group (MD 1.2 g/kg/day). We did not meta-analyse these data (very low-certainty evidence). None of the trials reported rate of head circumference growth. One trial reported that the mean z-score for weight at hospital discharge was higher in the early full enteral feeding group (MD 0.24, 95% CI 0.06 to 0.42; low-certainty evidence). Meta-analyses showed no evidence of an effect on necrotising enterocolitis (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.38 to 2.54; 6 trials, 522 participants; I² = 51%; very low-certainty evidence). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Trials provided insufficient data to determine with any certainty how early full enteral feeding, compared with delayed or progressive introduction of enteral feeds, affects growth in preterm or low birth weight infants. We are uncertain whether early full enteral feeding affects the risk of necrotising enterocolitis because of the risk of bias in the trials (due to lack of masking), inconsistency, and imprecision

Antimicrobial-impregnated central venous catheters for prevention of neonatal bloodstream infection (PREVAIL) : an open-label, parallel-group, pragmatic, randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND: Bloodstream infection is associated with high mortality and serious morbidity in preterm babies. Evidence from clinical trials shows that antimicrobial-impregnated central venous catheters (CVCs) reduce catheter-related bloodstream infection in adults and children receiving intensive care, but there is a paucity of similar evidence for babies receiving neonatal intensive care. METHODS: This open-label, parallel-group, pragmatic, randomised controlled trial was done in 18 neonatal intensive care units in England. Newborn babies who needed a peripherally inserted CVC (PICC) were allocated randomly (1:1) to receive either a PICC impregnated with miconazole and rifampicin or a standard (non-antimicrobial-impregnated) PICC. Random allocation was done with a web-based program, which was centrally controlled to ensure allocation concealment. Randomisation sequences were computer-generated in random blocks of two and four, and stratified by site. Masking of clinicians to PICC allocation was impractical because rifampicin caused brown staining of the antimicrobial-impregnated PICC. However, participant inclusion in analyses and occurrence of outcome events were determined following an analysis plan that was specified before individuals saw the unblinded data. The primary outcome was the time from random allocation to first microbiologically confirmed bloodstream or cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) infection between 24 h after randomisation and 48 h after PICC removal or death. We analysed outcome data according to the intention-to-treat principle. We excluded babies for whom a PICC was not inserted from safety analyses, as these analyses were done with groups defined by the PICC used. This trial is registered with ISRCTN, number 81931394. FINDINGS: Between Aug 12, 2015, and Jan 11, 2017, we randomly assigned 861 babies (754 [88%] born before 32 weeks of gestation) to receive an antimicrobial-impregnated PICC (430 babies) or standard PICC (431 babies). The median time to PICC removal was 8·20 days (IQR 4·77-12·13) in the antimicrobial-impregnated PICC group versus 7·86 days (5·00-12·53) days in the standard PICC group (hazard ratio [HR] 1·03, 95% CI 0·89-1·18, p=0·73), with 46 (11%) of 430 babies versus 44 (10%) of 431 babies having a microbiologically confirmed bloodstream or CSF infection. The time from random allocation to first bloodstream or CSF infection was similar between the two groups (HR 1·11, 95% CI 0·73-1·67, p=0·63). Secondary outcomes relating to infection, rifampicin resistance in positive blood or CSF cultures, mortality, clinical outcomes at neonatal unit discharge, and time to PICC removal were similar between the two groups, although rifampicin resistance in positive cultures of PICC tips was higher in the antimicrobial-impregnated PICC group (relative risk 3·51, 95% CI 1·16-10·57, p=0·018). 60 adverse events were reported from 49 (13%) patients in the antimicrobial-impregnated PICC group and 50 events from 45 (10%) babies in the standard PICC group. INTERPRETATION: We found no evidence of benefit or harm associated with miconazole and rifampicin-impregnated PICCs compared with standard PICCs for newborn babies. Future research should focus on other types of antimicrobial impregnation of PICCs and alternative approaches for preventing infection. FUNDING: UK National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme

The FEED1 trial : protocol for a randomised controlled trial of full milk feeds versus intravenous fluids with gradual feeding for preterm infants (30-33 weeks gestational age)

BACKGROUND: In the UK, approximately 8% of live births are preterm (before 37 weeks gestation), more than 90% of whom are born between 30 and 36 weeks, forming the largest proportion of a neonatal units' workload. Neonatologists are cautious in initiating full milk feeds for preterm infants due to fears of necrotising enterocolitis (NEC). There is now evidence to dispute this fear. Small studies have shown that feeding preterm infants full milk feeds enterally from birth could result in a shorter length of hospital stay, which is important to parents, clinicians and NHS services without increasing the risk of NEC. This trial aims to investigate whether full milk feeds initiated in the first 24 h after birth reduces the length of hospital stay in comparison to introduction of gradual milk feeding with IV fluids or parenteral nutrition. METHODS: FEED1 is a multi-centre, open, parallel group, randomised, controlled superiority trial of full milk feeds initiated on the day of birth versus gradual milk feeds for infants born at 30+0 to 32+6 (inclusive) weeks gestation. Recruitment will take place in around 40 UK neonatal units. Mothers will be randomised 1:1 to full milk feeds, starting at 60 ml/kg day, or gradual feeds, as per usual local practice. Mother's expressed breast milk will always be the first choice of milk, though will likely be supplemented with formula or donor breast milk in the first few days. Feeding data will be collected until full milk feeds are achieved (≥ 140 ml/kg/day for 3 consecutive days). The primary outcome is length of infant hospital stay. Additional data will be collected 6 weeks post-discharge. Follow-up at 2 years (corrected gestational age) is planned. The sample size is 2088 infants to detect a between group difference in length of stay of 2 days. Accounting for multiple births, this requires 1700 women to be recruited. Primary analysis will compare the length of hospital stay between groups, adjusting for minimisation variables and accounting for multiple births. DISCUSSION: This trial will provide high-quality evidence on feeding practices for preterm infants. Full milk feeds from day of birth could result in infants being discharged sooner. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN ISRCTN89654042 . Prospectively registered on 23 September 2019: ISRCTN is a primary registry of the WHO ICTRP network, and all items from the WHO Trial Registration dataset are included

Antimicrobial-impregnated central venous catheters for preventing neonatal bloodstream infection : the PREVAIL RCT

BACKGROUND:Clinical trials show that antimicrobial-impregnated central venous catheters reduce catheter-related bloodstream infection in adults and children receiving intensive care, but there is insufficient evidence for use in newborn babies. OBJECTIVES:The objectives were (1) to determine clinical effectiveness by conducting a randomised controlled trial comparing antimicrobial-impregnated peripherally inserted central venous catheters with standard peripherally inserted central venous catheters for reducing bloodstream or cerebrospinal fluid infections (referred to as bloodstream infections); (2) to conduct an economic evaluation of the costs, cost-effectiveness and value of conducting additional research; and (3) to conduct a generalisability analysis of trial findings to neonatal care in the NHS. DESIGN:Three separate studies were undertaken, each addressing one of the three objectives. (1) This was a multicentre, open-label, pragmatic randomised controlled trial; (2) an analysis was undertaken of hospital care costs, lifetime cost-effectiveness and value of information from an NHS perspective; and (3) this was a retrospective cohort study of bloodstream infection rates in neonatal units in England. SETTING:The randomised controlled trial was conducted in 18 neonatal intensive care units in England. PARTICIPANTS:Participants were babies who required a peripherally inserted central venous catheter (of 1 French gauge in size). INTERVENTIONS:The interventions were an antimicrobial-impregnated peripherally inserted central venous catheter (coated with rifampicin-miconazole) or a standard peripherally inserted central venous catheter, allocated randomly (1 : 1) using web randomisation. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE:Study 1 - time to first bloodstream infection, sampled between 24 hours after randomisation and 48 hours after peripherally inserted central venous catheter removal. Study 2 - cost-effectiveness of the antimicrobial-impregnated peripherally inserted central venous catheter compared with the standard peripherally inserted central venous catheters. Study 3 - risk-adjusted bloodstream rates in the trial compared with those in neonatal units in England. For study 3, the data used were as follows: (1) case report forms and linked death registrations; (2) case report forms and linked death registrations linked to administrative health records with 6-month follow-up; and (3) neonatal health records linked to infection surveillance data. RESULTS:Study 1, clinical effectiveness - 861 babies were randomised (antimicrobial-impregnated peripherally inserted central venous catheter, n = 430; standard peripherally inserted central venous catheter, n = 431). Bloodstream infections occurred in 46 babies (10.7%) randomised to antimicrobial-impregnated peripherally inserted central venous catheters and in 44 (10.2%) babies randomised to standard peripherally inserted central venous catheters. No difference in time to bloodstream infection was detected (hazard ratio 1.11, 95% confidence interval 0.73 to 1.67; p = 0.63). Secondary outcomes of rifampicin resistance in positive blood/cerebrospinal fluid cultures, mortality, clinical outcomes at neonatal unit discharge and time to peripherally inserted central venous catheter removal were similar in both groups. Rifampicin resistance in positive peripherally inserted central venous catheter tip cultures was higher in the antimicrobial-impregnated peripherally inserted central venous catheter group (relative risk 3.51, 95% confidence interval 1.16 to 10.57; p = 0.02) than in the standard peripherally inserted central venous catheter group. Adverse events were similar in both groups. Study 2, economic evaluation - the mean cost of babies' hospital care was £83,473. Antimicrobial-impregnated peripherally inserted central venous catheters were not cost-effective. Given the increased price, compared with standard peripherally inserted central venous catheters, the minimum reduction in risk of bloodstream infection for antimicrobial-impregnated peripherally inserted central venous catheters to be cost-effective was 3% and 15% for babies born at 23-27 and 28-32 weeks' gestation, respectively. Study 3, generalisability analysis - risk-adjusted bloodstream infection rates per 1000 peripherally inserted central venous catheter days were similar among babies in the trial and in all neonatal units. Of all bloodstream infections in babies receiving intensive or high-dependency care in neonatal units, 46% occurred during peripherally inserted central venous catheter days. LIMITATIONS:The trial was open label as antimicrobial-impregnated and standard peripherally inserted central venous catheters are different colours. There was insufficient power to determine differences in rifampicin resistance. CONCLUSIONS:No evidence of benefit or harm was found of peripherally inserted central venous catheters impregnated with rifampicin-miconazole during neonatal care. Interventions with small effects on bloodstream infections could be cost-effective over a child's life course. Findings were generalisable to neonatal units in England. Future research should focus on other types of antimicrobial impregnation of peripherally inserted central venous catheters and alternative approaches for preventing bloodstream infections in neonatal care. TRIAL REGISTRATION:Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN81931394. FUNDING:This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 24, No. 57. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information

Enteral lactoferrin supplementation for very preterm infants : a randomised placebo-controlled trial

Background: Infections acquired in hospital are an important cause of morbidity and mortality in very preterm infants. Several small trials have suggested that supplementing the enteral diet of very preterm infants with lactoferrin, an antimicrobial protein processed from cow's milk, prevents infections and associated complications. Methods: In this randomised, placebo-controlled trial, very preterm infants (born before 32 weeks' gestation) in 37 UK hospitals were allocated randomly (1:1) within 72 hours after birth to receive enteral bovine lactoferrin (150 mg/kg/day; maximum 300 mg/day) versus sucrose (same dose) once daily until 34 weeks' postmenstrual age. Web-based randomisation minimised for recruitment site, gestation (completed weeks), sex, and single versus multifetal pregnancy. Parents, caregivers and outcomes assessors were unaware of group assignment. The primary outcome was microbiologically-confirmed or clinically-suspected lateonset infection (occurring >72 hours after birth). The trial was registered with the International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial Number 88261002. Findings: We recruited 2203 participants between May 2014 and September 2017. Four infants had consent withdrawn or unconfirmed leaving 1098 infants in the lactoferrin group and 1101 in the sucrose group. Primary outcome data for 2182 infants were available for inclusion in the intention-to-treat analyses. In the intervention group, 316/1093 (28.9%) infants acquired a late-onset infection versus 334/1089 (30.7%) in the control group: risk ratio (RR) adjusted for minimisation factors 0.95 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.86, 1.04). Pre-specified subgroup analyses did not show statistically significant interactions for gestation at birth (completed weeks') or type of enteral milk received (human, formula, or both). Interpretation: Enteral supplementation with bovine lactoferrin does not reduce the incidence of late-onset infection in very preterm infants. Funding: UK National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme (10/57/49)