Search

Hepatitis B virus (HBV) is a main cause of chronic and acute hepatitis. Healthcare workers (HCWs), including medical students and resident doctors, have an occupational risk of HBV infection. The study aimed to evaluate the long-term persistence of protective anti-HBs antibody levels in healthcare students and resident doctors at risk for occupational exposure to (HBV) at 15 years after primary vaccination course. Further objective was to evaluate the anamnestic response observed in non-seroprotected subjects receiving a booster dose. Data were collected from the clinical documentation filled in during the occupational medical check of medical students and resident doctors undergoing Occupational Health Surveillance by the University of Ferrara. Of the 621 included individuals, 27.7% had an anti-HBs concentration, Journal of Preventive Medicine and Hygiene, Vol 60 No 3 (2019): 2019603

Introduction In recent years, a phenomenon known as "vaccine hesitancy" has spread throughout the world, even among health workers, determining a reduction in vaccination coverage (VC). A study aimed at evaluating VC among healthcare workers (HCWs) in 10 Italian cities (L'Aquila, Genoa, Milan, Palermo, Sassari, Catanzaro, Ferrara, Catania, Naples, Messina) was performed. Materials and methods Annex 3 of the Presidential Decree n. 445 of 28 December 2000 was used to collect information on the vaccination status of HCWs. The mean and standard deviation (SD) were calculated with regard to the quantitative variable (age), while absolute and relative frequencies were obtained for categorical data (sex, professional profile, working sector, vaccination status). The connection between VC and the categorical variables was evaluated by chi-square method (statistical significance at p, Journal of Preventive Medicine and Hygiene, Vol 60, No 1 (2019): 2019601

Objectives: To evaluate the maternal and perinatal outcomes of pregnancies affected by SARS-CoV-2 infection. Methods: This was a multinational retrospective cohort study including women with a singleton pregnancy and laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection, conducted in 72 centers in 22 different countries in Europe, the USA, South America, Asia and Australia, between 1 February 2020 and 30 April 2020. Confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection was defined as a positive result on real-time reverse-transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) assay of nasopharyngeal swab specimens. The primary outcome was a composite measure of maternal mortality and morbidity, including admission to the intensive care unit (ICU), use of mechanical ventilation and death. Results: In total, 388 women with a singleton pregnancy tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 on RT-PCR of a nasopharyngeal swab and were included in the study. Composite adverse maternal outcome was observed in 47/388 (12.1%) women; 43 (11.1%) women were admitted to the ICU, 36 (9.3%) required mechanical ventilation and three (0.8%) died. Of the 388 women included in the study, 122 (31.4%) were still pregnant at the time of data analysis. Among the other 266 women, six (19.4% of the 31 women with first-trimester infection) had miscarriage, three (1.1%) had termination of pregnancy, six (2.3%) had stillbirth and 251 (94.4%) delivered a liveborn infant. The rate of preterm birth before 37 weeks' gestation was 26.3% (70/266). Of the 251 liveborn infants, 69/251 (27.5%) were admitted to the neonatal ICU, and there were five (2.0%) neonatal deaths. The overall rate of perinatal death was 4.1% (11/266). Only one (1/251, 0.4%) infant, born to a mother who tested positive during the third trimester, was found to be positive for SARS-CoV-2 on RT-PCR. Conclusions: SARS-CoV-2 infection in pregnant women is associated with a 0.8% rate of maternal mortality, but an 11.1% rate of admission to the ICU. The risk of vertical transmission seems to be negligible. © 2020 International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology. © 2020 International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology

Due to a technical error, the author list at the end of this article is unfortunately incorrect. Elif Gül Yapar Eyi is not a co-author, and therefore, his name and affiliation should not appear in the list. The correct author list and affiliations read as follows: Daniele Di Mascio, Cihat Sen, Gabriele Saccone, Alberto Galindo, Amos Grünebaum, Jun Yoshimatsu, Milan Stanojevic, AsimKurjak, Frank Chervenak, María Jos´e Rodríguez Suárez, Zita Maria Gambacorti-Passerini, María de los Angeles Anaya Baz, Esther Vanessa Aguilar Galán, Yolanda Cuñarro López, Juan Antonio De León Luis, Ignacio Cueto Hernández, Ignacio Herraiz, Cecilia Villalain, Roberta Venturella, Giuseppe Rizzo, Ilenia Mappa, Giovanni Gerosolima, Lars Hellmeyer, Josefine Königbauer, Giada Ameli, Tiziana Frusca, Nicola Volpe, Giovanni Battista Luca Schera, Stefania Fieni, Eutalia Esposito, Giuliana Simonazzi, Gaetana Di Donna, Aly Youssef, Anna Nunzia Della Gatta, Mariano Catello Di Donna, Vito Chiantera, Natalina Buono, Giulio Sozzi, Pantaleo Greco, Danila Morano, Beatrice Bianchi, Maria Giulia Lombana Marino, Federica Laraud, Arianna Ramone, Angelo Cagnacci, Fabio Barra, Claudio Gustavino, Simone Ferrero, Fabio Ghezzi, Antonella Cromi, Antonio Simone Laganá, Valentina Laurita Longo, Francesca Stollagli, Angelo Sirico, Antonio Lanzone, Lorenza Driul, Fabiana Cecchini D, Serena Xodo, Brian Rodriguez, Felipe Mercado-Olivares, Deena Elkafrawi, Giovanni Sisti, Rosanna Esposito, Antonio Coviello, Marco Cerbone, Maddalena Morlando, Antonio Schiattarella, Nicola Colacurci, Pasquale De Franciscis, Ilaria Cataneo, Marinella Lenzi, Fabrizio Sandri, Riccardo Buscemi, Giorgia Gattei, Francesca della Sala, Eleonora Valori, Maria Cristina Rovellotti, Elisa Done, Gilles Faron, Leonardo Gucciardo, Valentina Esposito, Flaminia Vena, Antonella Giancotti, Roberto Brunelli, Ludovico Muzii, Luigi Nappi, Felice Sorrentino, Lorenzo Vasciaveo, Marco Liberati, Danilo Buca, Martina Leombroni, Francesca Di Sebastiano, Luciano Di Tizio, Diego Gazzolo, Massimo Franchi, Quintino Cesare Ianniciello, Simone Garzon, Giuliano Petriglia, Leonardo Borrello, Albaro Jos´e Nieto-Calvache, Juan Manuel Burgos-Luna, Caroline Kadji, Andrew Carlin, Elisa Bevilacqua, Marina Moucho, Pedro Viana Pinto, Rita Figueiredo, Jos´e Morales Roselló, Gabriela Loscalzo, Alicia Martinez-Varea, Vincente Diago, Jesús S Jimenez Lopez, Alicia Yeliz Aykanat, Stefano Cosma, Andrea Carosso, Chiara Benedetto, Amanda Bermejo, Otto Henrique May Feuerschuette, Ozlem Uyaniklar, Sakine Rahimli Ocakouglu, Zeliha Atak, Reyhan Gündüz, Esra Tustas Haberal, Bernd Froessler, Anupam Parange, Peter Palm, Igor Samardjiski, Chiara Taccaliti, Erhan Okuyan, George Daskalakis, Renato Augusto Moreira de Sa, Alejandro Pittaro, Maria Luisa Gonzalez-Duran, Ana Concheiro Guisan, Serife Özlem Genç, Blanka Zlatohlávková, Anna Luengo Piqueras, Dolores Esteban Oliva, Aylin Pelin Cil, Olus Api, Panos Antsaklis, Liana Ples, Ioannis Kyvernitakis, Holger Maul, Marcel Malan, Albert Lila, Roberta Granese, Alfredo Ercoli, Giuseppe Zoccali, Andrea Villasco, Nicoletta Biglia, Ciuhodaru Madalina, Elena Costa, Caroline Daelemans, Axelle Pintiaux, Elisa Cueto, Eran Hadar, Sarah Dollinger, Noa A. Brzezinski Sinai, Erasmo Huertas, Pedro Arango, Amadeo Sanchez, Javier Alfonso Schvartzman, Liviu Cojocaru, Sifa Turan, Ozhan Turan, Maria Carmela Di Dedda, Rebeca Garrote Molpeceres, Snezana Zdjelar, Tanja Premru-Srsen, Lilijana Kornhauser Cerar, Mirjam Druškovic, Valentina De Robertis, Vedran Stefanovic, Irmeli Nupponen, Kaisa Nelskylä, Zulfiya Khodjaeva, Ksenia A. Gorina, Gennady T. Sukhikh, Giuseppe Maria Maruotti, Silvia Visentin, Erich Cosmi, Jacopo Ferrari, Alessandra Gatti, Daniela Luvero, Roberto Angioli, Ludovica Puri, Marco Palumbo, Giusella D’Urso, Francesco Colaleo, Agnese Maria Chiara Rapisarda, Ilma Floriana Carbone, Antonio Mollo, Giovanni Nazzaro, Mariavittoria Locci, Maurizio Guida, Attilio Di Spiezio Sardo, Pierluigi Benedetti Panici, Vincenzo Berghella, Maria Elena Flacco, Lamberto Manzoli, Giuseppe Bifulco, Giovanni Scambia, Fulvio Zullo and Francesco D’Antonio Flaminia Vena, Antonella Giancotti, Roberto Brunelli, Ludovico Muzii and Pierluigi Benedetti Panici, Department of Maternal and Child Health and Urological Sciences, Sapienza University of Rome, Rome, Italy Rosanna Esposito, Antonio Coviello, Marco Cerbone, Giuseppe Maria Maruotti, Giovanni Nazzaro, Mariavittoria Locci, Maurizio Guida, Attilio Di Spiezio Sardo, Giuseppe Bifulco and Fulvio Zullo, Department of Neuroscience, Reproductive Sciences and Dentistry, School of Medicine, University of Naples Federico II, Naples, Italy Ignacio Herraiz and Cecilia Villalain, Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Fetal Medicine Unit, Maternal and Child Health and Development Network, University Hospital 12 de Octubre, Complutense University of Madrid, Madrid, Spain María Jos´e Rodríguez Suárez, Hospital Universitario Central de Asturias, Asturias, Spain Zita Maria Gambacorti-Passerini, Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Ciudad Real University General Hospital, Ciudad Real, Spain María de los Angeles Anaya Baz and Esther Vanessa Aguilar Galán, Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Ciudad Real University General Hospital, Ciudad Real, Spain; University of Castilla-La Mancha, Ciudad Real, Spain Yolanda Cuñarro López, Juan Antonio De León Luis and Ignacio Cueto Hernández, Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Fetal Medicine Unit, Maternal and Child Health and Development Network, Gregorio Marañón Hospital, Complutense University of Madrid, Madrid, Spain Roberta Venturella, Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, School of Medicine, Magna Graecia University of Catanzaro, Catanzaro, Italy Giuseppe Rizzo, University of Roma Tor Vergata, Division of Maternal Fetal Medicine, Ospedale Cristo Re Roma, Rome, Italy; Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, The First I.M. Sechenov Moscow State Medical University, Moscow, Russia Ilenia Mappa, University of Roma Tor Vergata, Division of Maternal Fetal Medicine, Ospedale Cristo Re Roma, Rome, Italy Giovanni Gerosolima, Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Ospedale AOSG Moscati, Avellino, Italy Lars Hellmeyer, Josefine Königbauer and Giada Ameli, Department of Gynaecology and Obstetrics, Vivantes Klinikum im Friedrichshain, Berlin, Germany Tiziana Frusca, Nicola Volpe, Giovanni Battista Luca Schera and Stefania Fieni, Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, University of Parma, Parma, Italy Eutalia Esposito, Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Ospedale di San Leonardo, Castellammare di Stabia, Italy Giuliana Simonazzi, Gaetana Di Donna, Aly Youssef and Anna Nunzia Della Gatta, Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, University of Bologna, Sant’Orsola- Malpighi University Hospital, Bologna, Italy Mariano Catello Di Donna, Vito Chiantera, Natalina Buono and Giulio Sozzi, Department of Gynaecologic Oncology, University of Palermo, Palermo, Sicilia, Italy Pantaleo Greco, Danila Morano, Beatrice Bianchi and Maria Giulia Lombana Marino, Department ofMedical Sciences, Section of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Azienda Ospedaliera-Universitaria Sant’Anna, University of Ferrara, Ferrara, Italy Federica Laraud, Arianna Ramone, Angelo Cagnacci, Fabio Barra, Claudio Gustavino and Simone Ferrero, Academic Unit of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, IRCCS Ospedale Policlinico, San Martino, Genova, Italy Fabio Ghezzi, Antonella Cromi and Antonio Simone Laganà, Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, “Filippo Del Ponte” Hospita University of Insubria, Varese, Italy Valentina Laurita Longo, Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario A Gemelli IRCCS – Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, Rome, Italy; Istituto di Clinica Ostetrica e Ginecologica, Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, Rome, Italy; and Queen Margaret University, Institute for Global Health and Development, Edinburgh, UK Francesca Stollagli and Ludovica Puri, Istituto di Clinica Ostetrica e Ginecologica, Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, Rome, Italy Angelo Sirico and Giovanni Scambia, Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario A Gemelli IRCCS – Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, Rome, Italy Antonio Lanzone, Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario A Gemelli IRCCS – Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, Rome, Italy; Istituto di Clinica Ostetrica e Ginecologica, Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, Rome, Italy Lorenza Driul, Fabiana Cecchini D and Serena Xodo, Clinic of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, University of Udine, Udine, Italy Brian Rodriguez, Felipe Mercado-Olivares, Deena Elkafrawi and Giovanni Sisti, Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, New York Health and Hospitals/Lincoln Bronx, The Bronx, NY, USA Maddalena Morlando, Antonio Schiattarella, Nicola Colacurci and Pasquale De Franciscis, Department of Woman, Child and General and Specialized Surgery, University of Campania Luigi Vanvitelli, Naples, Italy Ilaria Cataneo, Marinella Lenzi and Fabrizio Sandri, Unit of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Ospedale Maggiore, Bologna, Italy Riccardo Buscemi, Giorgia Gattei, Francesca della Sala and Maria Cristina Rovellotti, Department of Translational Medicine, University of Eastern Piedmont, Novara, Italy Eleonora Valori, Department of Translational Medicine, University of Eastern Piedmont, Novara, Italy; Hospital Castelli, Verbania, Italy Elisa Done, Gilles Faron and Leonardo Gucciardo, UZ Brussel, Universitair Ziekenhuis, Brussel, Belgium Valentina Esposito, University of Milan, Milan, Italy Luigi Nappi, Felice Sorrentino and Lorenzo Vasciaveo, Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Department of Medical and Surgical Sciences, University of Foggia, Foggia, Italy. © 2021 De Gruyter. All rights reserved.

BACKGROUND: It has still to be ascertained whether severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 infection in pregnancy is associated with worse maternal and fetal outcomes compared to low risk gestations. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to evaluate maternal and perinatal outcomes in high- and low-risk pregnancies complicated by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 infection. STUDY DESIGN: This was a multinational retrospective cohort study involving women with laboratory-confirmed severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 infection from 76 centers from 25 countries in Europe, the United States, South America, Asia, and Australia from April 4, 2020, to October 28, 2020. The primary outcome was a composite measure of maternal mortality and morbidity, including admission to the intensive care unit, use of mechanical ventilation, or death. The secondary outcome was a composite measure of adverse perinatal outcome, including miscarriage, fetal loss, neonatal and perinatal death, and admission to the neonatal intensive care unit. All outcomes were assessed in high- and low-risk pregnancies. Pregnancies were considered high risk in case of either preexisting chronic medical conditions in pregnancy or obstetrical disorders occurring in pregnancy. The Fisher exact test and logistic regression analysis were used to analyze the data. RESULTS: A total of 887 singleton pregnancies who tested positive for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 infection using reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction of nasal and pharyngeal swab specimens were included in the study. The risk of composite adverse maternal outcomes was higher in high-risk pregnancies than in low-risk pregnancies (odds ratio, 1.52; 95% confidence interval, 1.03–2.24; P=.035). In addition, women carrying high-risk pregnancies were at higher risk of hospital admission (odds ratio, 1.48; 95% confidence interval, 1.07–2.04; P=.002), presence of severe respiratory symptoms (odds ratio, 2.13; 95% confidence interval, 0.41–3.21; P=.001), admission to the intensive care unit (odds ratio, 2.63; 95% confidence interval, 1.42–4.88), and invasive mechanical ventilation (odds ratio, 2.65; 95% confidence interval, 1.19–5.94; P=.002). When exploring perinatal outcomes, high-risk pregnancies were at high risk of adverse perinatal outcomes (odds ratio, 1.78; 95% confidence interval, 0.15–2.72; P=.009). However, such association was mainly because of the higher incidence of miscarriage in high-risk pregnancies compared with that in low-risk pregnancies (5.3% vs 1.6%, P=.008); furthermore, there was no difference in other explored outcomes between the 2 study groups. At logistic regression analysis, maternal age (odds ratio, 1.12; 95% confidence interval, 1.02–1.22; P=.023) and high-risk pregnancy (odds ratio, 4.21; 95% confidence interval, 3.90–5.11; P

Background Neonatal units’ volume of activity, and other quantitative and qualitative variables, such as staffing, workload, work environment, care organization and geographical location, may influence the outcome of high risk newborns. Data about the distribution of these variables and their relationships among Italian neonatal units are lacking. Methods Between March 2010-April 2011, 63 neonatal intensive care units adhering to the Italian Neonatal Network participated in the SONAR Nurse study. Their main features and work environment were investigated by questionnaires compiled by the chief and by physicians and nurses of each unit. Twelve cross-sectional monthly-repeated surveys on different shifts were performed, collecting data on number of nurses on duty and number and acuity of hospitalized infants. Results Six hundred forty five physicians and 1601 nurses compiled the questionnaires. In the cross-sectional surveys 702 reports were collected, with 11082 infant and 3226 nurse data points. A high variability was found for units’ size (4–50 total beds), daily number of patients (median 14.5, range 3.4-48.7), number of nurses per shift (median 4.2, range 0.7-10.8) and number of team meetings per month. Northern regions performed better than Central and Southern regions for frequency of training meetings, qualitative assessment of performance, motivation within the unit and nursing work environment; mean physicians’ and nurses’ age increased moving from North to South. After stratification by terciles of the mean daily number of patients, the median number of nurses per shift increased at increasing volume of activity, while the opposite was found for the nurse-to-patient ratio adjusted by patients’ acuity. On average, in units belonging to the lower tercile there was 1 nurse every 2.5 patients, while in those belonging to the higher tercile the ratio was 1 nurse every 5 patients. Conclusions In Italy, there is a high variability in organizational characteristics and work environment among neonatal units and an uneven distribution of human resources in relation to volume of activity, suggesting that the larger the unit the greater the workload for each nurse. Urgent modifications in planning and organization of services are needed in order to pursue more efficient, homogeneous and integrated regionalized neonatal care systems.

Objective: To provide the first Italian data on pathogens causing early-onset sepsis (EOS) and their antimicrobial susceptibility, after the successfully prevention of Group B streptococcus (GBS) EOS. Methods: Retrospective area-based cohort study from Emilia-Romagna (Italy). Cases of EOS registered (from 2009 to 2012) in all gestational age neonates were reviewed. Results: Live births (LB) numbered 146 682. Ninety neonates had EOS and 12 died (incidence rates of 0.61 and 0.08/1000 LB, respectively). EOS and mortality were the highest among neonates with a birth weight n = 27, 0.18/1000 LB) and Escherichia coli (n = 19, 0.13/1000 LB). Most infants affected by E. coli EOS were born preterm (n = 13), had complications (n = 4) or died (n = 7). Among 90 isolates tested, only 3 were resistant to both first line empirical antibiotics. Multivariate logistic regression analysis showed that low gestational age, caesarean section and low platelet count at presentation were significantly associated with death or brain lesions (area under ROC curve = 0.939, H-L = 0.944, sensitivity 76.0%, specificity 90.7%). Conclusions: GBS slightly exceeds E. coli as a cause of EOS. However, E. coli is the prominent cause of death, complications and in most cases affects preterm neonates. Empirical antimicrobial therapy of EOS seems appropriate.

20-22 june 2013

Introduction Synthetic cannabimimetics (‘Spice’; SC) were identified in the ‘Spice’ compounds in 2009, and the first SC-related psychotic disturbance was anecdotally described in 2010. Most evidence relating to short/medium-term adverse effects associated with SC intake are based on case reports/series and retrospective toxicology surveys. Method We have already performed a descriptive analysis of psychopathological issues related to SC intake .We aimed here at better describing the typology of the published studies, whilst taking into account the discipline of the peer reviewed journals. Results The typology of the studies included here: toxicology surveys/laboratory studies (32%; 13/41); case reports/series (61%; 25/41), surveys on adverse effects reported by users (7%; 4/41). Main disciplines of journals where the papers where published included: General Medicine/Paediatrics (7/41); Addiction Medicine/Psychiatry (14/41); and Toxicology/Emergency Medicine (19/41). Conclusion Academic psychiatry has traditionally investigated issues associated with an increased risk of psychosis following cannabis/phytocannabinoids’ intake, and research focusing on the link between SC intake and psychotic disturbances is quite new. Although psychopathological issues related to misusing substances’ intake clearly pertain to Addiction Psychiatry, most papers here identified were published by Emergency Medicine/Toxicology Journals. A clear gap/delay between occurrence of SC-related Toxicology/Emergency Medicine (19/41) clinical observations and publishing relevant results was here identified.

“Secondary Transsexualism”: A Case Report for a man who Wants to Become a nun Elisabetta Pascolo-Fabrici a , Federico Sandri a , Sofia Panarello a , Francesca Fiorindo a , Sanja Nastasich a , Sara Benvenuto a [a] University of Trieste, ITALY. e.pascolo@fmc.units.it Transsexualism is considered to be the extreme end of the spectrum of gender identity disorders. In clinical observation we know that there are two different psychological structures of transsexualism: The “primary” emerges early in the child development and is linked with a clear perception of gender dysphoria. The “secondary” is typically late in a person’s development and is often secondary to other psychopathologies. In particular it can be connected to psychosis, borderline disorder, some kinds of depression or schizophrenia. In this work we underline the most important considerations about this secondary transsexualism trying to define some guidelines for a correct approach with this kind of patients. It is not common to find these cases in the literature because of its rare incidence and the complexity of the treatment. We describe a case report of a 45 years old man with this particular symptomatology who wants to become a woman to take vows as a nun. We underline some themes clearly lined with a secondary transsexualism; the patient links his decision to become a woman with some episodes of his past life in particular the sensation of his “intrusive” penis and anus (the patient reports some tickling sensations during arousal). Some important considerations regard the patient's interpretation of being a man similar as his father and his decision to become a nun (as a symbol of virginity). The difference between primary and secondary transsexualism is not quite clear since some people have a psychiatric symptomatology that could confuse the common guidelines. For this reason it is important to give a clear definition of these aspects. This case can be read to facilitate other clinics to an easier interpretation of secondary transsexualism.

INTRODUCTION: Variation of respiratory care is described between centers around the world. The Italian Neonatal Network (INN), as a national group of the Vermont-Oxford Network (VON) allows to perform a wide analysis of respiratory care in very low birth weight infants. METHODS: We analyzed the dataset of infants enrolled in the INN in 2009 and 2010 and, for surfactant administration only, from 2006 to 2010 from 83 participating centers. All definitions are those of the (VON). A questionnaire analysis was also performed with a questionnaire on centers practices. RESULTS: We report data for 8297 infants. Data on ventilator practices and outcomes are outlined. Variation for both practices and outcome is found. Trend in surfactant administration is also analyzed. CONCLUSIONS. The great variation across hospitals in all the surveyed techniques points to the possibility of implementing potentially better practices with the aim of reducing unwanted variation. These data also show the power of large neonatal networks in identifying areas for potential improvement.