Nasal high-flow therapy for newborn infants in special care nurseries

Nasal high-flow therapy is an alternative to nasal continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) as a means of respiratory support for newborn infants. The efficacy of high-flow therapy in nontertiary special care nurseries is unknown. METHODS We performed a multicenter, randomized, noninferiority trial involving newborn infants (<24 hours of age; gestational age, ≥31 weeks) in special care nurseries in Australia. Newborn infants with respiratory distress and a birth weight of at least 1200 g were assigned to treatment with either high-flow therapy or CPAP. The primary outcome was treatment failure within 72 hours after randomization. Infants in whom high-flow therapy failed could receive CPAP. Noninferiority was determined by calculating the absolute difference in the risk of the primary outcome, with a noninferiority margin of 10 percentage points. RESULTS A total of 754 infants (mean gestational age, 36.9 weeks, and mean birth weight, 2909 g) were included in the primary intention-to-treat analysis. Treatment failure occurred in 78 of 381 infants (20.5%) in the high-flow group and in 38 of 373 infants (10.2%) in the CPAP group (risk difference, 10.3 percentage points; 95% confidence interval [CI], 5.2 to 15.4). In a secondary per-protocol analysis, treatment failure occurred in 49 of 339 infants (14.5%) in the high-flow group and in 27 of 338 infants (8.0%) in the CPAP group (risk difference, 6.5 percentage points; 95% CI, 1.7 to 11.2). The incidences of mechanical ventilation, transfer to a tertiary neonatal intensive care unit, and adverse events did not differ significantly between the groups. CONCLUSIONS Nasal high-flow therapy was not shown to be noninferior to CPAP and resulted in a significantly higher incidence of treatment failure than CPAP when used in nontertiary special care nurseries as early respiratory support for newborn infants with respiratory distress

Feasibility and acceptability of targeted salivary cytomegalovirus screening through universal newborn hearing screening

Aim This study aimed to determine the feasibility and parental acceptability of screening for congenital cytomegalovirus (cCMV) through saliva polymerase chain reaction in infants who did not pass their newborn hearing screening. Additionally, the utility (i.e. time to diagnosis and treatment) of this enhanced clinical pathway was evaluated. Methods The study was conducted through the Victorian Infant Hearing Screening Programme (VIHSP) across four maternity hospitals in Melbourne, Australia, during June 2019–March 2020. Parents were approached by VIHSP staff about obtaining a test for cytomegalovirus (CMV) at the time of their baby's second positive (‘refer’) result on the VIHSP screen. Participating parents collected a saliva swab for CMV polymerase chain reaction from their infants. Feasibility was determined by the proportion of ‘referred’ infants whose parents completed the salivary CMV screening test ≤21 days of life. Acceptability was measured through parent survey. Results Of 126 eligible families, 96 (76.0%) had salivary screening swabs taken ≤21 days of life. Most families (>92.0%) indicated that screening was acceptable, straightforward and thought testing their baby for cCMV was a good idea. One infant screened positive on day 30, was diagnosed with cCMV via confirmatory testing by day 31 and commenced valganciclovir on day 32. Conclusions Obtaining a saliva sample to screen for cCMV in infants who do not pass their newborn hearing screen is feasible and appears acceptable to parents. This targeted cCMV screening method could be an option where mothers are rapidly discharged from hospital, especially in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic