Periextubation practices vary considerably; decisions are frequently physician dependent and not evidence based. The definition of EF is variable and well-defined criteria for reintubation are rarely used. High-quality trials are required to inform guidelines and standardise periextubation practices.

The novel coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has urged the development and implementation of guidelines and protocols on diagnosis, management, infection control strategies, and discharge planning. However, very little is currently known about neonatal COVID-19 and severe acute respiratory syndrome-coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) infections. Thus, many questions arise with regard to respiratory care after birth, necessary protection to health care workers (HCW) in the delivery room and neonatal intensive care unit (NICU), and safety of bag and mask ventilation, noninvasive respiratory support, deep suctioning, endotracheal intubation, and mechanical ventilation. Indeed, these questions have created tremendous confusion amongst neonatal HCW. In this manuscript, we comprehensively reviewed the current evidence regarding COVID-19 perinatal transmission, respiratory outcomes of neonates born to mothers with COVID-19 and infants with documented SARS-CoV-2 infection, and the evidence for using different respiratory support modalities and aerosol-generating procedures in this specific population. The results demonstrated that to date, neonatal COVID-19 infection is uncommon, generally acquired postnatally, and associated with favorable respiratory outcomes. The reason why infants display a milder spectrum of disease remains unclear. Nonetheless, the risk of severe or critical illness in young patients exists. Currently, the recommended respiratory approach for infants with suspected or confirmed infection is not evidence based but should include all routinely used types of support, with the addition of viral filters, proper personal protective equipment, and placement of infants in isolation rooms, ideally with negative pressure. As information is changing rapidly, clinicians should frequently watch out for updates on the subject.

ContextA variety of extubation readiness tests have already been incorporated into clinical practice in preterm infants.ObjectiveTo identify predictor tests of successful extubation and determine their accuracy compared with clinical judgement alone.MethodsMEDLINE, Embase, PubMed, Cochrane Library and Web of Science were searched between 1984 and June 2016. Studies evaluating predictors of extubation success during a period free of mechanical inflations in infants less than 37 weeks’ gestation were included. Risk of bias was assessed using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2 tool. After identifying and describing all predictor tests, pooled sensitivity and specificity estimates for the different test categories were generated using a bivariate random-effects model.ResultsThirty-five studies were included, showing wide heterogeneities in population characteristics, methodologies and definitions of extubation success. Assessments ranged from a few seconds to 24 hours, provided 0–6 cmH2O positive end-expiratory pressure and measured several clinical and/or physiological parameters. Thirty-one predictor tests were identified, showing good sensitivities but low and variable specificities. Given the high variation in test definitions across studies, pooling could only be performed on a subset. The commonly performed spontaneous breathing trials had pooled sensitivity of 95% (95% CI 87% to 99%) and specificity of 62% (95% CI 38% to 82%), while composite tests offered the best performance characteristics.ConclusionsThere is a lack of strong evidence to support the use of extubation readiness tests in preterm infants. Although spontaneous breathing trials are attractive assessment tools, higher quality studies are needed for determining the optimal strategies for improving their accuracy.