Search

AIM: To assess the prevalence, types and indications for fluid bolus therapy in neonates with haemodynamic compromise. METHODS: This was a pragmatic, international, multicentre observational study in neonatal units across Australasia, Europe and North America with a predefined study period of 10-15 study days per participating neonatal unit between December 2015 and March 2017. Infants ≤28 days of age who received a fluid bolus for the management of haemodynamic compromise (≥10 mL/kg given at ≤6 h) were included. RESULTS: A total of 163 neonates received a bolus over 8479 eligible patient days in 41 neonatal units. Prevalence of fluid bolus therapy varied between centres from 0 to 28.6% of admitted neonates per day, with a pooled prevalence rate of 1.5% (95% confidence interval 1.1-1.9%). The most common fluid used was 0.9% sodium chloride (129/163; 79%), and the volume of fluid administered was most commonly 10 mL/kg (115/163; 71%) over a median of 30 min (interquartile range 20-60). The most frequent indications were hypotension (n = 56; 34%), poor perfusion (n = 20; 12%) and metabolic acidosis (n = 20; 12%). Minimal or no clinical improvement was reported by clinicians in 66 of 163 cases (40%). CONCLUSIONS: Wide international variations in types, indications and effects of fluid bolus administration in haemodynamically compromised neonates suggest uncertainty in the risk-benefit profile. This is likely to reflect the lack of robust evidence to support the efficacy of different fluid types, doses and appropriate indications. Together, these highlight a need for further clinically relevant studies.

Objective To determine the accuracy of the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD) calculator in predicting death and neurodevelopmental impairment in Australian and New Zealand infants. Design Population-based cohort study. setting Australia and New Zealand. Patients Preterm infants 22-25 completed weeks gestation. Interventions Comparison of NICHD calculator predicted rates of death and death or neurodevelopmental impairment, with actual rates recorded in the Australian and New Zealand Neonatal Network cohort. Main outcome measures Infant death and death or neurodevelopmental impairment rates. results A total of 714 infants were included in the study. Of these infants, 100 (14.0%) were <24 weeks, 389 (54.5%) male, 529 (74.1%) were singletons, 42 (5.9%) had intrauterine growth restriction, 563 (78.9%) received antenatal steroids and 625 (87.5 %) were born in a tertiary hospital. There were 288 deaths (40.3%), 75 infants (10.5%) with neurodevelopment impairment and 363 (50.8%) with death or neurodevelopmental impairment. The area under the curve (AUC) for prediction of death and the composite death or neurodevelopmental impairment by the NICHD calculator in our population was 0.65(95% CI 0.61 to 0.69) and 0.65 (95% CI 0.61 to 0.69), respectively. When stratified and compared with gestational age outcomes, the AUC did not change substantially for the outcomes investigated. The calculator was less accurate with outcome predictions at the extreme categories of predicted outcomes-underestimation of outcomes for those predicted to have the lowest risk (<20%) and overestimation for those in the highest risk category (>>80%). conclusion In our recent cohort of extremely preterm infants, the NICHD model does not accurately predict outcomes and is marginally better than gestational age based outcomes.Copyright © Article author(s) (or their employer(s) unless otherwise stated in the text of the article) 2017. All rights reserved.

Objective To determine the accuracy of the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD) calculator in predicting death and neurodevelopmental impairment in Australian and New Zealand infants. Design Population-based cohort study. setting Australia and New Zealand. Patients Preterm infants 22-25 completed weeks gestation. Interventions Comparison of NICHD calculator predicted rates of death and death or neurodevelopmental impairment, with actual rates recorded in the Australian and New Zealand Neonatal Network cohort. Main outcome measures Infant death and death or neurodevelopmental impairment rates. results A total of 714 infants were included in the study. Of these infants, 100 (14.0%) were <24 weeks, 389 (54.5%) male, 529 (74.1%) were singletons, 42 (5.9%) had intrauterine growth restriction, 563 (78.9%) received antenatal steroids and 625 (87.5 %) were born in a tertiary hospital. There were 288 deaths (40.3%), 75 infants (10.5%) with neurodevelopment impairment and 363 (50.8%) with death or neurodevelopmental impairment. The area under the curve (AUC) for prediction of death and the composite death or neurodevelopmental impairment by the NICHD calculator in our population was 0.65(95% CI 0.61 to 0.69) and 0.65 (95% CI 0.61 to 0.69), respectively. When stratified and compared with gestational age outcomes, the AUC did not change substantially for the outcomes investigated. The calculator was less accurate with outcome predictions at the extreme categories of predicted outcomes-underestimation of outcomes for those predicted to have the lowest risk (<20%) and overestimation for those in the highest risk category (>>80%). conclusion In our recent cohort of extremely preterm infants, the NICHD model does not accurately predict outcomes and is marginally better than gestational age based outcomes.Copyright © Article author(s) (or their employer(s) unless otherwise stated in the text of the article) 2017. All rights reserved.

Objective To determine the accuracy of the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD) calculator in predicting death and neurodevelopmental impairment in Australian and New Zealand infants. Design Population-based cohort study. setting Australia and New Zealand. Patients Preterm infants 22–25 completed weeks gestation. Interventions Comparison of NICHD calculator predicted rates of death and death or neurodevelopmental impairment, with actual rates recorded in the Australian and New Zealand Neonatal Network cohort. Main outcome measures Infant death and death or neurodevelopmental impairment rates. results A total of 714 infants were included in the study. Of these infants, 100 (14.0%) were <24 weeks, 389 (54.5%) male, 529 (74.1%) were singletons, 42 (5.9%) had intrauterine growth restriction, 563 (78.9%) received antenatal steroids and 625 (87.5 %) were born in a tertiary hospital. There were 288 deaths (40.3%), 75 infants (10.5%) with neurodevelopment impairment and 363 (50.8%) with death or neurodevelopmental impairment. The area under the curve (AUC) for prediction of death and the composite death or neurodevelopmental impairment by the NICHD calculator in our population was 0.65(95% CI 0.61 to 0.69) and 0.65 (95% CI 0.61 to 0.69), respectively. When stratified and compared with gestational age outcomes, the AUC did not change substantially for the outcomes investigated. The calculator was less accurate with outcome predictions at the extreme categories of predicted outcomes—underestimation of outcomes for those predicted to have the lowest risk (<20%) and overestimation for those in the highest risk category (≫80%). conclusion In our recent cohort of extremely preterm infants, the NICHD model does not accurately predict outcomes and is marginally better than gestational age based outcomes.

Background: Compared to very low gestational age (<32 weeks, VLGA) cohorts, very low birth weight (<1500 g; VLBW) cohorts are more prone to selection bias toward small-for-gestational age (SGA) infants, which may impact upon the validity of data for benchmarking purposes. Method(s): Data from all VLGA or VLBW infants admitted in the 3 Networks between 2008 and 2011 were used. Two-thirds of each network cohort was randomly selected to develop prediction models for mortality and composite adverse outcome (CAO: mortality or cerebral injuries, chronic lung disease, severe retinopathy or necrotizing enterocolitis) and the remaining for internal validation. Areas under the ROC curves (AUC) of the models were compared. Result(s): VLBW cohort (24,335 infants) had twice more SGA infants (20.4% vs. 9.3%) than the VLGA cohort (29,180 infants) and had a higher rate of CAO (36.5% vs. 32.6%). The two models had equal prediction power for mortality and CAO (AUC 0.83), and similarly for all other cross-cohort validations (AUC 0.81-0.85). Neither model performed well for the extremes of birth weight for gestation (<1500 g and >=32 weeks, AUC 0.50-0.65; >=1500 g and <32 weeks, AUC 0.60-0.62). Conclusion(s): There was no difference in prediction power for adverse outcome between cohorting VLGA or VLBW despite substantial bias in SGA population. Either cohorting practises are suitable for international benchmarking.Copyright © 2017 The Author(s).

OBJECTIVES: To compare survival rates and age at death among very preterm infants in 10 national and regional neonatal networks. METHOD(S): A cohort study of very preterm infants, born between 24 and 29 weeks' gestation and weighing <1500 g, admitted to participating neonatal units between 2007 and 2013 in the International Network for Evaluating Outcomes of Neonates. Survival was compared by using standardized ratios (SRs) comparing survival in each network to the survival estimate of the whole population. RESULT(S): Network populations differed with respect to rates of cesarean birth, exposure to antenatal steroids and birth in nontertiary hospitals. Network SRs for survival were highest in Japan (SR: 1.10; 99% confidence interval: 1.08-1.13) and lowest in Spain (SR: 0.88; 99% confidence interval: 0.85-0.90). The overall survival differed from 78% to 93% among networks, the difference being highest at 24 weeks' gestation (range 35%-84%). Survival rates increased and differences between networks diminished with increasing gestational age (GA) (range 92%-98% at 29 weeks' gestation); yet, relative differences in survival followed a similar pattern at all GAs. The median age at death varied from 4 days to 13 days across networks. CONCLUSION(S): The network ranking of survival rates for very preterm infants remained largely unchanged as GA increased; however, survival rates showed marked variations at lower GAs. The median age at death also varied among networks. These findings warrant further assessment of the representativeness of the study populations, organization of perinatal services, national guidelines, philosophy of care at extreme GAs, and resources used for decision-making.© Copyright 2017 by the American Academy of Pediatrics.

Background: Compared to very low gestational age (<32 weeks, VLGA) cohorts, very low birth weight (<1500 g; VLBW) cohorts are more prone to selection bias toward small-for-gestational age (SGA) infants, which may impact upon the validity of data for benchmarking purposes. Method(s): Data from all VLGA or VLBW infants admitted in the 3 Networks between 2008 and 2011 were used. Two-thirds of each network cohort was randomly selected to develop prediction models for mortality and composite adverse outcome (CAO: mortality or cerebral injuries, chronic lung disease, severe retinopathy or necrotizing enterocolitis) and the remaining for internal validation. Areas under the ROC curves (AUC) of the models were compared. Result(s): VLBW cohort (24,335 infants) had twice more SGA infants (20.4% vs. 9.3%) than the VLGA cohort (29,180 infants) and had a higher rate of CAO (36.5% vs. 32.6%). The two models had equal prediction power for mortality and CAO (AUC 0.83), and similarly for all other cross-cohort validations (AUC 0.81-0.85). Neither model performed well for the extremes of birth weight for gestation (<1500 g and >=32 weeks, AUC 0.50-0.65; >=1500 g and <32 weeks, AUC 0.60-0.62). Conclusion(s): There was no difference in prediction power for adverse outcome between cohorting VLGA or VLBW despite substantial bias in SGA population. Either cohorting practises are suitable for international benchmarking.Copyright © 2017 The Author(s).

OBJECTIVES: To compare survival rates and age at death among very preterm infants in 10 national and regional neonatal networks. METHOD(S): A cohort study of very preterm infants, born between 24 and 29 weeks' gestation and weighing <1500 g, admitted to participating neonatal units between 2007 and 2013 in the International Network for Evaluating Outcomes of Neonates. Survival was compared by using standardized ratios (SRs) comparing survival in each network to the survival estimate of the whole population. RESULT(S): Network populations differed with respect to rates of cesarean birth, exposure to antenatal steroids and birth in nontertiary hospitals. Network SRs for survival were highest in Japan (SR: 1.10; 99% confidence interval: 1.08-1.13) and lowest in Spain (SR: 0.88; 99% confidence interval: 0.85-0.90). The overall survival differed from 78% to 93% among networks, the difference being highest at 24 weeks' gestation (range 35%-84%). Survival rates increased and differences between networks diminished with increasing gestational age (GA) (range 92%-98% at 29 weeks' gestation); yet, relative differences in survival followed a similar pattern at all GAs. The median age at death varied from 4 days to 13 days across networks. CONCLUSION(S): The network ranking of survival rates for very preterm infants remained largely unchanged as GA increased; however, survival rates showed marked variations at lower GAs. The median age at death also varied among networks. These findings warrant further assessment of the representativeness of the study populations, organization of perinatal services, national guidelines, philosophy of care at extreme GAs, and resources used for decision-making.© Copyright 2017 by the American Academy of Pediatrics.

© 2017 The Author(s). Background: Compared to very low gestational age (<32 weeks, VLGA) cohorts, very low birth weight (<1500 g; VLBW) cohorts are more prone to selection bias toward small-for-gestational age (SGA) infants, which may impact upon the validity of data for benchmarking purposes. Method: Data from all VLGA or VLBW infants admitted in the 3 Networks between 2008 and 2011 were used. Two-thirds of each network cohort was randomly selected to develop prediction models for mortality and composite adverse outcome (CAO: mortality or cerebral injuries, chronic lung disease, severe retinopathy or necrotizing enterocolitis) and the remaining for internal validation. Areas under the ROC curves (AUC) of the models were compared. Results: VLBW cohort (24,335 infants) had twice more SGA infants (20.4% vs. 9.3%) than the VLGA cohort (29,180 infants) and had a higher rate of CAO (36.5% vs. 32.6%). The two models had equal prediction power for mortality and CAO (AUC 0.83), and similarly for all other cross-cohort validations (AUC 0.81-0.85). Neither model performed well for the extremes of birth weight for gestation (<1500 g and ≥32 weeks, AUC 0.50-0.65; ≥1500 g and <32 weeks, AUC 0.60-0.62). Conclusion: There was no difference in prediction power for adverse outcome between cohorting VLGA or VLBW despite substantial bias in SGA population. Either cohorting practises are suitable for international benchmarking.

© 2017 The Healthcare Infection Society Background Umbilical venous catheters (UVCs) or peripherally inserted central catheters (PICCs), widely used in high-risk neonates, may have a threshold dwell time for subsequent increased risk of central-line-associated bloodstream infection (CLABSI). Aim To evaluate the CLABSI risks in neonates having either UVC, PICC, or those having both sequentially. Methods The study included 3985 infants who had UVC or PICC inserted between 2007 and 2009 cared for in 10 regional neonatal intensive care units: 1392 having UVC only (group 1), 1317 PICC only (group 2), and 1276 both UVC and PICC (group 3). Findings There were 403 CLABSIs among 6000 venous catheters inserted, totalling 43,302 catheter-days. CLABSI rates were higher in group 3 infants who were of lowest gestation (16.9 per 1000 UVC-days and 12.5 per 1000 PICC-days; median: 28 weeks) when compared with group 1 (3.3 per 1000 UVC-days; 37 weeks) and group 2 (4.8 per 1000 PICC-days; 30 weeks). Life table and Kaplan–Meier hazard analysis showed that UVC CLABSI rate increased stepwise to 42 per 1000 UVC-days by day 10, with the highest rate in group 3 (85 per 1000 UVC-days). PICC CLABSI rates remained relatively stable at 12–20 per 1000 PICC-days. Compared to PICC, UVC had a higher adjusted CLABSI risk controlled for dwell time. Among group 3, replacing UVC electively before day 4 may have a trend of lower CLABSI risk than late replacement. Conclusion There was no cut-off duration beyond which PICC should be removed electively. Early UVC removal and replacement by PICC before day 4 might be considered.

© Article author(s) (or their employer(s) unless otherwise stated in the text of the article) 2017. All rights reserved. Objective To determine the accuracy of the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD) calculator in predicting death and neurodevelopmental impairment in Australian and New Zealand infants. Design Population-based cohort study. setting Australia and New Zealand. Patients Preterm infants 22–25 completed weeks gestation. Interventions Comparison of NICHD calculator predicted rates of death and death or neurodevelopmental impairment, with actual rates recorded in the Australian and New Zealand Neonatal Network cohort. Main outcome measures Infant death and death or neurodevelopmental impairment rates. results A total of 714 infants were included in the study. Of these infants, 100 (14.0%) were <24 weeks, 389 (54.5%) male, 529 (74.1%) were singletons, 42 (5.9%) had intrauterine growth restriction, 563 (78.9%) received antenatal steroids and 625 (87.5 %) were born in a tertiary hospital. There were 288 deaths (40.3%), 75 infants (10.5%) with neurodevelopment impairment and 363 (50.8%) with death or neurodevelopmental impairment. The area under the curve (AUC) for prediction of death and the composite death or neurodevelopmental impairment by the NICHD calculator in our population was 0.65(95% CI 0.61 to 0.69) and 0.65 (95% CI 0.61 to 0.69), respectively. When stratified and compared with gestational age outcomes, the AUC did not change substantially for the outcomes investigated. The calculator was less accurate with outcome predictions at the extreme categories of predicted outcomes—underestimation of outcomes for those predicted to have the lowest risk (<20%) and overestimation for those in the highest risk category (≫80%). conclusion In our recent cohort of extremely preterm infants, the NICHD model does not accurately predict outcomes and is marginally better than gestational age based outcomes.

© 2017 The Author(s). Background: Compared to very low gestational age (<32 weeks, VLGA) cohorts, very low birth weight (<1500 g; VLBW) cohorts are more prone to selection bias toward small-for-gestational age (SGA) infants, which may impact upon the validity of data for benchmarking purposes. Method: Data from all VLGA or VLBW infants admitted in the 3 Networks between 2008 and 2011 were used. Two-thirds of each network cohort was randomly selected to develop prediction models for mortality and composite adverse outcome (CAO: mortality or cerebral injuries, chronic lung disease, severe retinopathy or necrotizing enterocolitis) and the remaining for internal validation. Areas under the ROC curves (AUC) of the models were compared. Results: VLBW cohort (24,335 infants) had twice more SGA infants (20.4% vs. 9.3%) than the VLGA cohort (29,180 infants) and had a higher rate of CAO (36.5% vs. 32.6%). The two models had equal prediction power for mortality and CAO (AUC 0.83), and similarly for all other cross-cohort validations (AUC 0.81-0.85). Neither model performed well for the extremes of birth weight for gestation (<1500 g and ≥32 weeks, AUC 0.50-0.65; ≥1500 g and <32 weeks, AUC 0.60-0.62). Conclusion: There was no difference in prediction power for adverse outcome between cohorting VLGA or VLBW despite substantial bias in SGA population. Either cohorting practises are suitable for international benchmarking.

© Article author(s) (or their employer(s) unless otherwise stated in the text of the article) 2017. All rights reserved. Objective To determine the accuracy of the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD) calculator in predicting death and neurodevelopmental impairment in Australian and New Zealand infants. Design Population-based cohort study. setting Australia and New Zealand. Patients Preterm infants 22–25 completed weeks gestation. Interventions Comparison of NICHD calculator predicted rates of death and death or neurodevelopmental impairment, with actual rates recorded in the Australian and New Zealand Neonatal Network cohort. Main outcome measures Infant death and death or neurodevelopmental impairment rates. results A total of 714 infants were included in the study. Of these infants, 100 (14.0%) were <24 weeks, 389 (54.5%) male, 529 (74.1%) were singletons, 42 (5.9%) had intrauterine growth restriction, 563 (78.9%) received antenatal steroids and 625 (87.5 %) were born in a tertiary hospital. There were 288 deaths (40.3%), 75 infants (10.5%) with neurodevelopment impairment and 363 (50.8%) with death or neurodevelopmental impairment. The area under the curve (AUC) for prediction of death and the composite death or neurodevelopmental impairment by the NICHD calculator in our population was 0.65(95% CI 0.61 to 0.69) and 0.65 (95% CI 0.61 to 0.69), respectively. When stratified and compared with gestational age outcomes, the AUC did not change substantially for the outcomes investigated. The calculator was less accurate with outcome predictions at the extreme categories of predicted outcomes—underestimation of outcomes for those predicted to have the lowest risk (<20%) and overestimation for those in the highest risk category (≫80%). conclusion In our recent cohort of extremely preterm infants, the NICHD model does not accurately predict outcomes and is marginally better than gestational age based outcomes.

© 2017 The Healthcare Infection Society Background Umbilical venous catheters (UVCs) or peripherally inserted central catheters (PICCs), widely used in high-risk neonates, may have a threshold dwell time for subsequent increased risk of central-line-associated bloodstream infection (CLABSI). Aim To evaluate the CLABSI risks in neonates having either UVC, PICC, or those having both sequentially. Methods The study included 3985 infants who had UVC or PICC inserted between 2007 and 2009 cared for in 10 regional neonatal intensive care units: 1392 having UVC only (group 1), 1317 PICC only (group 2), and 1276 both UVC and PICC (group 3). Findings There were 403 CLABSIs among 6000 venous catheters inserted, totalling 43,302 catheter-days. CLABSI rates were higher in group 3 infants who were of lowest gestation (16.9 per 1000 UVC-days and 12.5 per 1000 PICC-days; median: 28 weeks) when compared with group 1 (3.3 per 1000 UVC-days; 37 weeks) and group 2 (4.8 per 1000 PICC-days; 30 weeks). Life table and Kaplan–Meier hazard analysis showed that UVC CLABSI rate increased stepwise to 42 per 1000 UVC-days by day 10, with the highest rate in group 3 (85 per 1000 UVC-days). PICC CLABSI rates remained relatively stable at 12–20 per 1000 PICC-days. Compared to PICC, UVC had a higher adjusted CLABSI risk controlled for dwell time. Among group 3, replacing UVC electively before day 4 may have a trend of lower CLABSI risk than late replacement. Conclusion There was no cut-off duration beyond which PICC should be removed electively. Early UVC removal and replacement by PICC before day 4 might be considered.