We have found a significant number of deviations from the NRP guidelines. Video recording of actual clinical practice is a useful QA tool for monitoring the conduct of newborn resuscitation. We are now conducting repeat video assessments of individual NRP providers to determine whether there is improved performance.
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: There are no US Food and Drug Administration-approved therapies for neonatal seizures. Phenobarbital and phenytoin frequently fail to control seizures. There are concerns about the safety of seizure medications in the developing brain. Levetiracetam has proven efficacy and an excellent safety profile in older patients; therefore, there is great interest in its use in neonates. However, randomized studies have not been performed. Our objectives were to study the efficacy and safety of levetiracetam compared with phenobarbital as a first-line treatment of neonatal seizures. METHODS:The study was a multicenter, randomized, blinded, controlled, phase IIb trial investigating the efficacy and safety of levetiracetam compared with phenobarbital as a firstline treatment for neonatal seizures of any cause. The primary outcome measure was complete seizure freedom for 24 hours, assessed by independent review of the EEGs by 2 neurophysiologists.RESULTS: Eighty percent of patients (24 of 30) randomly assigned to phenobarbital remained seizure free for 24 hours, compared with 28% of patients (15 of 53) randomly assigned to levetiracetam (P , .001; relative risk 0.35 [95% confidence interval: 0.22-0.56]; modified intention-to-treat population). A 7.5% improvement in efficacy was achieved with a dose escalation of levetiracetam from 40 to 60 mg/kg. More adverse effects were seen in subjects randomly assigned to phenobarbital (not statistically significant). CONCLUSIONS:In this phase IIb study, phenobarbital was more effective than levetiracetam for the treatment of neonatal seizures. Higher rates of adverse effects were seen with phenobarbital treatment. Higher-dose studies of levetiracetam are warranted, and definitive studies with long-term outcome measures are needed.WHAT'S KNOWN ON THIS SUBJECT: In 1999, a randomized controlled trial comparing phenobarbital and phenytoin in neonates revealed that each drug had 45% efficacy. These treatments remain the standard of care for neonatal seizures. Levetiracetam has a better safety profile; however, its efficacy is unproven in neonates.WHAT THIS STUDY ADDS: In this study conducted in the hypothermia era and with near real-time response to continuous video EEG monitoring, phenobarbital was more effective than levetiracetam in achieving seizure cessation. Dose-finding studies and phase III trials with long-term outcomes are needed.
Objective To compare early routine pharmacologic treatment of moderate-to-large patent ductus arteriosus (PDA) at the end of week 1 with a conservative approach that requires prespecified respiratory and hemodynamic criteria before treatment can be given. Study design A total of 202 neonates of <28 weeks of gestation age (mean, 25.8 ± 1.1 weeks) with moderate-to-large PDA shunts were enrolled between age 6 and 14 days (mean, 8.1 ± 2.2 days) into an exploratory randomized controlled trial. Results At enrollment, 49% of the patients were intubated and 48% required nasal ventilation or continuous positive airway pressure. There were no differences between the groups in either our primary outcome of ligation or presence of a PDA at discharge (early routine treatment [ERT], 32%; conservative treatment [CT], 39%) or any of our prespecified secondary outcomes of necrotizing enterocolitis (ERT, 16%; CT, 19%), bronchopulmonary dysplasia (BPD) (ERT, 49%; CT, 53%), BPD/death (ERT, 58%; CT, 57%), death (ERT,19%; CT, 10%), and weekly need for respiratory support. Fewer infants in the ERT group met the rescue criteria (ERT, 31%; CT, 62%). In secondary exploratory analyses, infants receiving ERT had significantly less need for inotropic support (ERT, 13%; CT, 25%). However, among infants who were ≥26 weeks gestational age, those receiving ERT took significantly longer to achieve enteral feeding of 120 mL/kg/day (median: ERT, 14 days [range, 4.5-19 days]; CT, 6 days [range, 3-14 days]), and had significantly higher incidences of late-onset non-coagulase-negative Staphylococcus bacteremia (ERT, 24%; CT,6%) and death (ERT, 16%; CT, 2%). Conclusions In preterm infants age <28 weeks with moderate-to-large PDAs who were receiving respiratory support after the first week, ERT did not reduce PDA ligations or the presence of a PDA at discharge and did not improve any of the prespecified secondary outcomes, but delayed full feeding and was associated with higher rates of late-onset sepsis and death in infants born at ≥26 weeks of gestation. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01958320.
Flow-triggered ventilators are susceptible to autocycling due to flow compensation to maintain positive end-expiratory pressure levels in the presence of an airway leak. The difference in autocycling is due to the maximum sensitivity setting of each ventilator, and not to intrinsic ventilator flowsensing or other software mechanisms. The 3.3-mL/sec setting was the least prone to autocycling and seems appropriate. The ventilator set at 2.5 mL/sec at the time of this study has been released instead at 4 mL/sec, due to these findings. The ventilator with the maximum setting at 1 mL/sec autocycled readily at leak size of > or = 10%. Since such a leak size was present in 70% of infants, this setting should be used with caution. Using these guidelines, autocycling of all three ventilators is likely to occur mainly in 8% of infants with leak size of > 30%. In these cases, lowering the sensitivity setting and/or positive end-expiratory pressure level may decrease autocycling, or may necessitate reintubation with a larger endotracheal tube.
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 © 2025 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.