You are here

Responses

Article menu
Download PDFPDF
Original research
Corrective steps to enhance ventilation in the delivery room
Compose a Response to This Article
Compose Response

More information about text formats

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  • A rapid response is a moderated but not peer reviewed online response to a published article in a BMJ journal; it will not receive a DOI and will not be indexed unless it is also republished as a Letter,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.
  • 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 and understand that your personal data will be processed in accordance with those terms and our privacy notice.
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: 17 March 2021
    Is MRSOPA algorithm a cause for concern?

    The reported findings that some MRSOPA corrective steps actually made matters worse (1) should be a wake-up call to those teaching neonatal resuscitation (NRP), especially as many components of the algorithm are not evidence based and have never been validated.
    I wish to briefly report on two adverse outcomes which occurred on Vancouver Island at separate sites and at separate times, both following the introduction of the MRSOPA algorithm. Both infants were delivered at term by C Section under maternal general anesthetic. One was a preplanned elective C Section, the other for failure to progress with no concerns with the fetal heart tracing. There was no meconium present in the amniotic fluid. Both infants were depressed at birth but with palpable heartbeat. For both infants, there was difficulty in establishing effective ventilation. When intubation was eventually achieved, there was no colour change with CO2 detector, resulting in removal and resumption of bag-mask ventilation. The Neopuff (Fisher & Paykel) T piece was used in both cases and pressures were initially set at 20/5cm H20, as per NRP guidelines. However pressure increases occurred late. One baby had completely normal arterial cord gases. The other had an arterial cord pH 7.17.
    Following a prolonged but eventually successful resuscitation, both infants were cooled for 72hours. One infant required transport to a level 3 site and subsequently did well. The other child did poorly. That child now...

    Show More
    Conflict of Interest:
    None declared.