Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32749547›Full record

Trial reportEuropean journal of pediatrics2021

Time needed to intubate and suction a manikin prior to instituting positive pressure ventilation: a simulation trial.

Francesco Cavallin, Giulia Res, Chiara Monfredini, Nicoletta Doglioni, Paolo Ernesto Villani, Gary Weiner, Daniele Trevisanuto

Registry-linked trialOpen access · hybridAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in European journal of pediatrics, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT04076189 (Time of Initiation of Positive Pressure Ventilation in Non-vigorous Infants Born Through Meconium-stained Amniotic Fluid), which is not on this map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
0.4field-weighted citation impact, top 34% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

NCT04076189 nacompletednot on this map

Time of Initiation of Positive Pressure Ventilation in Non-vigorous Infants Born Through Meconium-stained Amniotic Fluid: a Cross-over Randomized, Control Trial

TypeinterventionalSponsorUniversity Hospital PadovaRan2019 to 2019Enrolled40ConditionsMeconium Aspiration Syndrome, Infant, Newborn, Disease, Neonatal ResuscitationArmsEndotracheal suctioning, No endotracheal suctioning
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Meconium Aspiration Syndrome: A Narrative Review.Children (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021
    Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.

Francesco Cavallin, Solagna, Italy.
Giulia ResDepartment of Women and Children Health, University of Padova, Via Giustiniani, 3, 35128, Padova, Italy.
Chiara MonfrediniFondazione Poliambulanza, Brescia, Italy.
Nicoletta DoglioniDepartment of Women and Children Health, University of Padova, Via Giustiniani, 3, 35128, Padova, Italy.
Paolo Ernesto VillaniFondazione Poliambulanza, Brescia, Italy.
Gary WeinerDivision of Neonatal-Perinatal Medicine, Department of Pediatrics and Communicable Diseases, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA.
Daniele TrevisanutoDepartment of Women and Children Health, University of Padova, Via Giustiniani, 3, 35128, Padova, Italy. daniele.trevisanuto@unipd.it.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7126-5298
University of Padua · ITFondazione Poliambulanza Istituto Ospedaliero · ITR2M Solution (Italy) · ITUniversity of Michigan · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Tracheal suctioning in non-vigorous newborn delivered through meconium-stained amniotic fluid (MSAF) is supposed to delay initiation of positive pressure ventilation (PPV), but the magnitude of such delay is unknown. To compare the time of PPV initiation when performing immediate laryngoscopy with intubation and suctioning vs. performing immediate PPV without intubation in a manikin model. Randomized controlled crossover (AB/BA) trial comparing PPV initiation with or without endotracheal suctioning in a manikin model of non-vigorous neonates born through MSAF. Participants were 20 neonatologists and 20 pediatric residents trained in advanced airway management. Timing of PPV initiation was longer with vs. without endotracheal suctioning in both pediatric residents (mean difference 13 s, 95% confidence interval 8 to 18 s; p < 0.0001) and neonatologists (mean difference 12 s, 95% confidence interval 8 to 16 s; p < 0.0001). The difference in timing of PPV initiation was similar between pediatric residents and neonatologists (mean difference - 1 s, 95% confidence interval - 7 to 6 s; p = 0.85).Conclusions: Performing immediate laryngoscopy with intubation and suctioning was associated with longer-but not clinically relevant-time of initiation of PPV compared with immediate PPV without intubation in a manikin model. While suggesting negligible delay in starting PPV, further studies in a clinical setting are warranted.Registration: clinicaltrial.gov NCT04076189. What is Known: • Management of the non-vigorous newborn delivered through meconium-stained amniotic fluid remains still controversial. • Tracheal suctioning in non-vigorous newborn delivered through meconium-stained amniotic fluid is supposed to delay initiation of positive pressure ventilation, but the magnitude of such delay is unknown. What is New: • Performing immediate ventilation without intubation was associated with shorter-but not clinically relevant-time of initiation of ventilation compared to immediate laryngoscopy with intubation and suctioning in a manikin model. • Further studies in a clinical setting are warranted.

Indexed as

ManikinsMeconium Aspiration SyndromeChildCross-Over StudiesHumansInfant, NewbornIntubation, IntratrachealMeconiumPositive-Pressure RespirationSuctionIntubationManikinMeconium aspiration syndromeNeonateSuctioningTime

Identifiers

PMID32749547
PMCPMC7782398
OpenAlexW3047618275

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.