Observational studyPloS one2024
Clear amniotic fluid aspiration syndrome: A novel description of an old entity.
Observational study in PloS one, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundClear amniotic fluid aspiration syndrome (CAF-AS) is a very rare event occurring in 0.25% of our term clear amniotic fluids deliveries. The study's aims were: 1. to characterize the risk factors and outcomes associated with Clear Amniotic Fluid Aspiration Syndrome and 2. to compare the outcomes of Clear Amniotic Fluid Aspiration to Meconium Aspiration.
methodsThis was an observational study over a 22-year period in a single level-3 medical center. Compared were parturient/labor characteristics and neonatal outcomes in cases with suspected Clear Amniotic Fluid Aspiration to cases suspected for Meconium Aspiration.
resultsOut of 79,620 term deliveries there were 66,705 (83.8%) clear amniotic fluids and 12,915 (16.2%) meconium stained amniotic fluid (MSAF). Of neonates born with clear amniotic fluid, 166 (0.25%) were diagnosed with Clear Amniotic Fluid Aspiration Syndrome (CAF-AS), while 202 (15.7%) of those born with MSAF, were diagnosed with aspiration syndrome (MSAF-AS). Both conditions had comparable rates of mild manifestation (67.5% vs 69.2%, p = 0.63). Persistent pulmonary hypertension (PPH) occurred 5 times less in CAF-AS than MSAF-AS (4% vs 20%, OR 0.17, P< 0.0001) Both conditions presented similar rates of surfactant without PPH (11.1% vs 13.4%, p = 0.87). There was 1 postnatal death in CAF-AS vs 10 in MSAF.
conclusionCAF-AS were quantitatively quite similar in terms of need of actual active intervention of the neonatologists in the delivery room (166 vs 202, i.e. in terms of numbers of cases and not prevalence) to MSAF-AS.We identified in these cases two major specific causes: hyperkinetic explosive deliveries in multiparas and long-lasting episodes of maternal hypotension due to epidural/spinal anaesthesia during labor. Out of 140 million births per year in the world, it should be of concern that 3 million cases are neglected nowadays. Future studies should evaluate if this CAF-AS should benefit from a more active intervention such as immediate endotracheal suction at birth, this clear fluid being very easy to suction.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
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.