Objective To evaluate the effect of implementing automated oxygen control as routine care in maintaining oxygen saturation (SpO2) within target range in preterm infants.
Methods Infants <30 weeks gestation in Leiden University Medical Centre before and after the implementation of automated oxygen control were compared. The percentage of time spent with SpO2 within and outside the target range (90–95%) was calculated. SpO2 values were collected every minute and included for analysis when infants received extra oxygen.
Results In a period of 9 months, 42 preterm infants (21 manual, 21 automated) were studied. In the automated period, the median (IQR) time spent with SpO2 within target range increased (manual vs automated: 48.4 (41.5–56.4)% vs 61.9 (48.5–72.3)%; p<0.01) and time SpO2 >95% decreased (41.9 (30.6–49.4)% vs 19.3 (11.5–24.5)%; p<0.001). The time SpO2<90% increased (8.6 (7.2–11.7)% vs 15.1 (14.0–21.1)%; p<0.0001), while SpO2<80% was similar (1.1 (0.4–1.7)% vs 0.9 (0.5–2.1)%; ns).
Conclusions During oxygen therapy, preterm infants spent more time within the SpO2 target range after implementation of automated oxygen control, with a significant reduction in hyperoxaemia, but not hypoxaemia.
- Preterm infant
Statistics from Altmetric.com
Twitter Follow Henriëtte van Zanten @heza01
Contributors HAVZ was the executive researcher of the study. She performed literature search, data collection, data analysis, data interpretation, writing and submitting of the manuscript. KLAMK was involved in data collection, critically reviewed the manuscript and approved the final version. BJS was involved in interpretation of the data, critically reviewed the manuscript and approved the final version. TB critically reviewed the manuscript and approved the final version. SP was involved in data analysis, critically reviewed the manuscript and approved the final version. ABtP was the project leader and performed literature search, designed the study and coordinated data analysis, data interpretation, writing, editing and submitting of the manuscript.
Competing interests None declared.
Ethics approval the Research Ethics Committee of LUMC.
Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.
If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.