Background: Spontaneous closure of patent ductus arteriosus (PDA) occurs frequently in very preterm infants and despite the lack of evidence for treatment benefits, treatment for PDA is common in neonatal medicine. Objectives: The aim of this work was to study regional variations in PDA treatment in very preterm infants (≤31 weeks of gestation), its relation to differences in perinatal characteristics, and associations with bronchopulmonary dysplasia (BPD) and survival without major neonatal morbidity. Methods: This was a population-based cohort study in 19 regions in 11 European countries conducted during 2011 and 2012. A total of 6,896 infants with data on PDA treatment were included. The differences in infant characteristics were studied across regions using a propensity score derived from perinatal risk factors for PDA treatment. The primary outcomes were a composite of BPD or death before 36 weeks postmenstrual age, or survival without major neonatal morbidity. Results: The proportion of PDA treatment varied from 10 to 39% between regions (p < 0.001), and this difference could not be explained by differences in perinatal characteristics. The regions were categorized according to a low (<15%, n = 6), medium (15-25%, n = 9), or high (>25%, n = 4) proportion of PDA treatment. Infants treated for PDA, compared to those not treated, were at higher risk of BPD or death in all regions, with an overall propensity score adjusted risk ratio of 1.33 (95% confidence interval 1.18-1.51). Survival without major neonatal morbidity was not related to PDA treatment. Conclusions: PDA treatment varies largely across Europe without associated variations in perinatal characteristics or neonatal outcomes. This finding calls for more uniform guidance for PDA diagnosis and treatment in very preterm infants.
BackgroundAssessment of laypersons’ Paediatric Basic Life Support (PBLS) skills is important to ensure acquisition of effective PBLS competencies. However limited evidence exists on which PBLS skills are essential for laypersons. The same challenges exist with respect to the assessment of foreign body airway obstruction management (FBAOM) skills. We aimed to establish international consensus on how to assess laypersons’ PBLS and FBAOM skills.MethodsA Delphi consensus survey was conducted. Out of a total of 84 invited experts, 28 agreed to participate. During the first Delphi round experts suggested items to assess laypersons’ PBLS and FBAOM skills.In the second round, the suggested items received comments from and were rated by 26 experts (93%) on a 5-point scale (1 = not relevant to 5 = essential). Revised items were anonymously presented in a third round for comments and 23 (82%) experts completed a re-rating. Items with a score above 3 by more than 80% of the experts in the third round were included in an assessment instrument.ResultsIn the first round, 19 and 15 items were identified to assess PBLS and FBAOM skills, respectively. The ratings and comments from the last two rounds resulted in nine and eight essential assessment items for PBLS and FBAOM skills, respectively. The PBLS items included: “Responsiveness”,” Call for help”, “Open airway”,” Check breathing”, “Rescue breaths”, “Compressions”, “Ventilations“, “Time factor” and “Use of AED”. The FBAOM items included: “Identify different stages of foreign body airway obstruction”, “Identify consciousness”, “Call for help”, “Back blows“, “Chest thrusts/abdominal thrusts according to age”, “Identify loss of consciousness and change to CPR”, “Assessment of breathing” and “Ventilation”.DiscussionFor assessment of laypersons some PBLS and FBAOM skills described in guidelines are more important than others. Four out of nine of PBLS skills focus on airway and breathing skills, supporting the major importance of these skills for laypersons’ resuscitation attempts.ConclusionsInternational consensus on how to assess laypersons’ paediatric basic life support and foreign body airway obstruction management skills was established. The assessment of these skills may help to determine when laypersons have acquired competencies.Trial registrationNot relevant.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (10.1186/s13049-018-0474-5) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
Word count: 249Aim: To compare dyad (training in pairs without an instructor) with resource-intensive instructor-led training for laypersons' paediatric resuscitation skills in a non-inferiority trial and examine costeffectiveness of the training methods. Methods:In this randomised parallel group non-inferiority trial, 155 dyad and 175 instructor-led laypersons were trained in Basic Life Support and Foreign Body Airway Obstruction Management. Dyads were given instructional videos, hands-on exercises and provided feedback to their partner for 50 minutes. Instructorled laypersons trained in groups of six for two hours. Learning were assessed in scenarios immediately after training and, subsequently, at 14 days, 1, and 3 months. Pass rates, cost-effectiveness of producing a competent layperson (passing both tests), and non-inferiority were analysed.Results: Sixty-eight (45.6%) dyad and 130 (74.3%) instructor-led laypersons passed the basic life support test (p<0.001). For foreign body Airway obstruction management 77 (54.2%) dyad and 130 (79.3%) for instructor-led laypersons passed (p<0.001). Skills decreased over three months for both groups. Forty-two (30.4%) dyad and ninety-eight (59.8%) for instructor-led laypersons were competent after training (p<0.001). The lower effectiveness of dyad training had reduced costs (p<0.001). For each 10,000 USD allocated to training, dyad training would result in 71 vs. 65 competent laypersons for instructor-led training. Non-inferiority of dyad training could not be established. Conclusion:Instructor-led training was the most effective but also the most expensive training method, making it less cost-effective than dyad training. When the aim is to train for quantity rather than quality, dyad training would be the preferred choice of training method.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
customersupport@researchsolutions.com
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.