Responses

Download PDFPDF
Randomised cross-over study of automated oxygen control for preterm infants receiving nasal high flow
Compose Response

Plain text

  • No HTML tags allowed.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
Author Information
First or given name, e.g. 'Peter'.
Your last, or family, name, e.g. 'MacMoody'.
Your email address, e.g. higgs-boson@gmail.com
Your role and/or occupation, e.g. 'Orthopedic Surgeon'.
Your organization or institution (if applicable), e.g. 'Royal Free Hospital'.
Statement of Competing Interests

PLEASE NOTE:

  • A rapid response is a moderated but not peer reviewed online response to a published article in a BMJ journal; it will not receive a DOI and will not be indexed unless it is also republished as a Letter, Correspondence or as other content. Find out more about rapid responses [https://authors.bmj.com/after-submitting/rapid-responses/].
  • We intend to post all responses which are approved by the Editor, within 14 days (BMJ Journals) or 24 hours (The BMJ), however timeframes cannot be guaranteed. Responses must comply with our requirements and should contribute substantially to the topic, but it is at our absolute discretion whether we publish a response, and we reserve the right to edit or remove responses before and after publication and also republish some or all in other BMJ publications, including third party local editions in other countries and languages
  • Our requirements are stated in our rapid response terms and conditions and must be read. These include ensuring that: i) you do not include any illustrative content including tables and graphs, ii) you do not include any information that includes specifics about any patients,iii) you do not include any original data, unless it has already been published in a peer reviewed journal and you have included a reference, iv) your response is lawful, not defamatory, original and accurate, v) you declare any competing interests, vi) you understand that your name and other personal details set out in our rapid response terms and conditions will be published with any responses we publish and vii) you understand that once a response is published, we may continue to publish your response and/or edit or remove it in the future.
  • By submitting this rapid response you are agreeing to our terms and conditions for rapid responses [https://www.bmj.com/company/journals-terms-and-conditions-for-rapid-responses/] and understand that your personal data will be processed in accordance with those terms and our privacy notice [https://www.bmj.com/company/your-privacy/].
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.

Vertical Tabs

Other responses

Jump to comment:

  • Published on:
    Target range 90-95% vs. 91-95%
    • Katherine J Pettinger, ST6 Bradford Teaching Hospitals NHS foundation trust
    • Other Contributors:
      • Sam Oddie, neonatologist

    We were impressed by the conduct and results of Reynolds et al.’s randomised controlled cross-over trial comparing Vapotherm’s IntellO2 device with manual control of inspired oxygen, showing improvement in the proportion of time spent within the target oxygen saturation range (automated arm mean 80% of time in 90-95% range vs. manual 49%). The findings are consistent with a meta-analysis referenced within their paper [1].

    The Neonatal Oxygenation Prospective Meta-analysis (NeOProM) shows that targeting oxygen saturations of 91–95% with an oximeter with a correctly configured algorithm, carries a 38% survival advantage [2]. The co-ordinator of the NeOProM collaboration has stated that the “Infants born extremely preterm … should have their oxygen saturation levels targeted between 91% and 95%” [3].

    The difference between the saturation targeting approach adopted by Reynolds et al., and NeOProM may appear small but, on account of the sigmoidal shape of the haemoglobin–oxygen dissociation curve, significant hypoxic shifts will occur with small changes in oxygen saturation.

    Given the rigor of the NeOProM findings, would Reynolds et al. agree that targeting oxygen saturations of 91-95% is an important first step, whilst we wait for products which will allow improved titration of oxygen delivery?

    References:
    [1] Mitra S, Singh B, El-Naggar W, McMillan DD. Automated versus manual control of inspired oxygen to target oxygen saturation in prete...

    Show More
    Conflict of Interest:
    None declared.