Dear Editor,
We read with interest the paper from our colleagues in Toronto on the possible association between the use of diazoxide treatment for hypoglycemia and the onset of necrotizing enterocolitis (NEC). We wish to share our single-center experience on diazoxide and we beg to differ with the authors. Our NICU is a tertiary care center from Midwest Canada that has the least incidence of NEC across all the centers in Canada as per Canadian Neonatal Network (CNN) database. For nearly 2 decades, we have been using diazoxide in our unit, in the treatment of persistent neonatal hypoglycemia among intra-uterine growth retardation, small-for-gestational age, infant of a diabetic mother, and transient hyperinsulinemic hypoglycemia neonates.
Our neonates are comparable to Toronto population, with prematurity, and other risk factors. We have used both moderate doses (5-10mg/kg/day) and higher doses (maximum up to 15mg/kg/day) in 3 divided doses in our practice. Over the last 10 years (between the years 2010-2020), 164 neonates have received diazoxide treatment in our NICU and none of them have had NEC as a complication of treatment during or after the therapy. Common side-effects of diazoxide in infants and children include nausea, vomiting, loss of appetite, headache, dizziness, stomach pain or upset, diarrhea, changes in sense of taste, hypertrichosis (especially in women and children), anxiety, weakness, pruritus or skin rash. We agree as the authors mentioned on...
Dear Editor,
We read with interest the paper from our colleagues in Toronto on the possible association between the use of diazoxide treatment for hypoglycemia and the onset of necrotizing enterocolitis (NEC). We wish to share our single-center experience on diazoxide and we beg to differ with the authors. Our NICU is a tertiary care center from Midwest Canada that has the least incidence of NEC across all the centers in Canada as per Canadian Neonatal Network (CNN) database. For nearly 2 decades, we have been using diazoxide in our unit, in the treatment of persistent neonatal hypoglycemia among intra-uterine growth retardation, small-for-gestational age, infant of a diabetic mother, and transient hyperinsulinemic hypoglycemia neonates.
Our neonates are comparable to Toronto population, with prematurity, and other risk factors. We have used both moderate doses (5-10mg/kg/day) and higher doses (maximum up to 15mg/kg/day) in 3 divided doses in our practice. Over the last 10 years (between the years 2010-2020), 164 neonates have received diazoxide treatment in our NICU and none of them have had NEC as a complication of treatment during or after the therapy. Common side-effects of diazoxide in infants and children include nausea, vomiting, loss of appetite, headache, dizziness, stomach pain or upset, diarrhea, changes in sense of taste, hypertrichosis (especially in women and children), anxiety, weakness, pruritus or skin rash. We agree as the authors mentioned on the occurrence of transient fluid retention, pulmonary edema, elevated pulmonary pressures, and brief oxygen dependency during and after the diazoxide treatment as side effects in neonates.
The authors have highlighted that seven (13%) out of fifty-five neonates developed NEC after diazoxide treatment. [1] And of the 7 patients, one patient was exposed to octreotide. [1] Octreotide has already been known to have proven hemodynamic side-effects on splanchnic circulation, thereby predisposing these vulnerable population leading to NEC. When the baby is receiving octreotide, there could have been a cascade of hemodynamic changes in the gut which could be monitored by NIRS or abdominal Doppler studies to assess gut blood flow. As the authors mention, Gray KD et al. reported 1066 neonates treated with diazoxide for hypoglycemia, less than 1% of neonates developed NEC. In our center, we decided to use diazoxide as a monotherapy in the treatment of neonatal hypoglycemia. Diazoxide did not cause any alterations in the intestinal blood flow which was monitored by near-infrared spectroscopy (NIRS). According to Table.3 in the paper, there were no significant difference between the diazoxide initial dose and maximum dose used between the NEC vs. no NEC group.
Thus, diazoxide has been used in our center successfully with no major side-effects. It also helped in shortening the duration of stay and cost of treatment substantially thereby reducing the burden on our provincial healthcare system.
Kaarthigeyan Kalaniti1, Veronica Samedi1, Neil Wonko1, Sibasis Daspal1
1Division of Neonatology, Dept. of Pediatrics,
Jim Pattison Children’s Hospital,
University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, SK, Canada
E-mail: vmsamedi@gmail.com
References:
1. Prado LA, Castro M, Weisz DE, et al. Arch Dis Child Fetal Neonatal Ed. 2020; 0: F1–F5.
2. Gray KD, Dudash K, Escobar C, et al. Prevalence and safety of diazoxide in the neonatal intensive care unit. J Perinatol 2018; 38: 1496-502.
Dear Sir or Madam!
Nasal CPAP is one of the most important therapies in neonatology. Accordingly, the manufacturers of such devices are very interested in gaining market share. Not all of their "sales arguments" correspond to clinical or physical reality. This is why studies comparing different devices are so extremely important.
The authors claim to have compared three CPAP systems that are referred to as "variable-flow" devices. This refers to CPAP systems that generate their CPAP through one or more jets, corresponding to jet ventilation as it is known in laryngeal surgery. But does the Miniflow CPAP belong in this category? The Miniflow has one inspiratory and one expiratory tube and does not have a jet. Pressure is generated through the expiratory valve of a ventilator. Such CPAP devices are actually called "constant-flow" devices.
Basically, the division into variable-flow and constant-flow devices is considered very confusing and, above all, physically questionable. However, the terms are very persistent. In any case, however, the statement of the study could be supplemented. It shows not only that there is no difference between variable flow devices, but equally no difference between variable and constant flow devices.
Yours sincerely,
Martin Wald
Ravaldi et al. in their letter raise two points of dispute. The first is linked to epidemiological data and the other to the fact that, according to them, a reduction in gynecological checks during pregnancy did not occur in the lockdown of spring 2020. I appreciate their engagement with the article but I disagree.
On the first point (epidemiological data), the difference between the data presented by Ravaldi and those indicated by us is linked to the fact that they mistakenly refer to older years. Ravaldi’s 2019 stillbirth is taken from the Italian Statistical Yearbook 2019, which refers to the entire 2016. Our data, obtained from the CEDAP (hospital discharge database, which records perinatal information on all newborns), are instead those of Mar-May 2019 and Mar-May 2020 (3 months of lockdown).
Furthermore, Ravaldi’s stillbirth data starting from 22 weeks were taken from the ISTAT Reproductive Health document published in 2018, which refers to 2015 data. The authors therefore cannot contest the difference in the results because they are using different data sources. A further analysis (to be published) on larger samples on all births in Lazio confirmed a significant difference between stillbirths in the period March-May 2020 compared to the same months in the years 2017-2019 (3.23 vs 1.83 per thousand, p value = 0.014) . The increase in stillbirths in the first half of 2020 was observed in numerous developed and developing countries as well as in Italy (1-...
Ravaldi et al. in their letter raise two points of dispute. The first is linked to epidemiological data and the other to the fact that, according to them, a reduction in gynecological checks during pregnancy did not occur in the lockdown of spring 2020. I appreciate their engagement with the article but I disagree.
On the first point (epidemiological data), the difference between the data presented by Ravaldi and those indicated by us is linked to the fact that they mistakenly refer to older years. Ravaldi’s 2019 stillbirth is taken from the Italian Statistical Yearbook 2019, which refers to the entire 2016. Our data, obtained from the CEDAP (hospital discharge database, which records perinatal information on all newborns), are instead those of Mar-May 2019 and Mar-May 2020 (3 months of lockdown).
Furthermore, Ravaldi’s stillbirth data starting from 22 weeks were taken from the ISTAT Reproductive Health document published in 2018, which refers to 2015 data. The authors therefore cannot contest the difference in the results because they are using different data sources. A further analysis (to be published) on larger samples on all births in Lazio confirmed a significant difference between stillbirths in the period March-May 2020 compared to the same months in the years 2017-2019 (3.23 vs 1.83 per thousand, p value = 0.014) . The increase in stillbirths in the first half of 2020 was observed in numerous developed and developing countries as well as in Italy (1-5).
On the second point, we had not indicated the precise causes of the increase in stillbirths as we did not have the data, but the most probable cause is the postponement of many medical checks that have affected all ages of life. It is true that all mothers love their children, but undoubtedly there has been a reduction in compulsory pediatric vaccinations and a postponement of many checks for fear of contracting coronavirus infection by going to hospitals and medical centers. For example, there was a reduction in emergency room activities and consequent delay in the diagnosis of various diseases, including serious ones (6-8). In the published article we never intended to blame women but we limited ourselves to observing a phenomenon.
In addition, in the study from Ravaldi et. al (9-10), the authors use a very limited sample and as they are aware there is also the risk of a sample selection bias: “Women likely to respond may have been better connected to health care and may have better access to internet and electronic facilities”.
Mario De Curtis, Leonardo Villani, Arianna Polo
References
1.Dell'Utri C, Manzoni E, Cipriani S et al. Effects of SARS Cov-2 epidemic on the obstetrical and gynecological emergency service accesses. What happened and what shall we expect now? Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol .2020 Nov;254:64-68 July 10, 2020
2.A Khalil, von Dadelszen P, Draycott Tet al. Change in the Incidence of Stillbirth and Preterm Delivery During the COVID-19 Pandemic
3.Watson C. Stillbirth rate rises during coronavirus pandemic. Nature 2020, 585: 490
4.Mor M, Kugler N, Jauniaux E et al. Impact of the Covid-19 pandemic on excess perinatal mortality and morbidity in Israel. Am J Perinatol.2020 Dec 10, doi: 10.1055/s-0040-1721515
5. Kumari V, Mehta K, Choudhary R. Covid-19 outbreak and decreased hospitalisation of pregnant women in labour Lancet Glob Health 2020 Sep; 8(9): e1116-e1117. doi: 10.1016/S2214-109X(20)30319-3
6. Ciacchini B, Tonioli F, Marciano C et al., Reluctance to seek pediatric care during the COVID-19 pandemic and the risks of delayed diagnosis, in J. Pediatr., 2020 Jun, 29; 46(1):87, doi: 10.1186/s13052-020-00849-w;
7. Dopfer C, Wetzke M, Zychlinsky Scharff A et al., COVID-19 related reduction in pediatric emergency healthcare utilization – a concerning trend, in BMC Pediatr., 2020 Sep 7; 20(1):427, doi:10.1186/s12887-020-02303-6;
8. Lynn R. M, L Avis JL, Lenton S et al., Delayed access to care and late presentations in children during the COVID-19 pandemic: a snapshot survey of 4075 paediatricians in the UK and Ireland, in BMJ Arch. Dis. Child., 2020 Jun 25, doi: 10.1136/archdischild-2020-319848.
9. Ravaldi C, Vannacci A, The COVID-ASSESS dataset - COVID19 related anxiety and stress in prEgnancy, poSt-partum and breaStfeeding during lockdown in Italy. Data in Brief 2020 33, 106440 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dib.2020.106440
10. Ravaldi C, Wilson A, Ricca V, Homer C, Vannacci A, Pregnant women voice their concerns and birth expectations during the COVID-19 pandemic in Italy, Women Birth (2020), doi: 10.1016/j.wombi.2020.07.002
I read with interest the economic evaluation of Speed of Increasing milk Feeds Trial (SIFT) in preterm infants presented by Tahir and colleagues.(1) While the clinical findings from the SIFT had shown short-term benefits such as lesser TPN days with faster feed increments, and was equivocal for the composite primary outcome of death and disability measured at 24 months, this analysis recommends against faster feed increments based on the cost-effectiveness analyses. The average total costs is shown to be marginally higher for subjects in this arm, with a mean difference of £267 (0.25%). I highlight below many issues that probably affect the conclusions, and the generalizability of the findings, of this economic evaluation.
First, the trial enrolled 1394 and 1399 patients in the two study arms. However, the cost data of initial hospitalization is presented for 1224 and 1246 patients in these arms. It seems that 170 and 153 patients from the two trial arms were lost to follow-up after the initial hospitalization;(2) however, the data for these subjects should not be excluded while calculating the average initial hospitalization costs per subject.
Second, more deaths during the initial hospitalization were reported in the slower increment arm and those probably lowered the average cost for this arm. It is well known that the hospitalization costs for very preterm infants that die during the neonatal period are substantially lower than those of the survivors....
I read with interest the economic evaluation of Speed of Increasing milk Feeds Trial (SIFT) in preterm infants presented by Tahir and colleagues.(1) While the clinical findings from the SIFT had shown short-term benefits such as lesser TPN days with faster feed increments, and was equivocal for the composite primary outcome of death and disability measured at 24 months, this analysis recommends against faster feed increments based on the cost-effectiveness analyses. The average total costs is shown to be marginally higher for subjects in this arm, with a mean difference of £267 (0.25%). I highlight below many issues that probably affect the conclusions, and the generalizability of the findings, of this economic evaluation.
First, the trial enrolled 1394 and 1399 patients in the two study arms. However, the cost data of initial hospitalization is presented for 1224 and 1246 patients in these arms. It seems that 170 and 153 patients from the two trial arms were lost to follow-up after the initial hospitalization;(2) however, the data for these subjects should not be excluded while calculating the average initial hospitalization costs per subject.
Second, more deaths during the initial hospitalization were reported in the slower increment arm and those probably lowered the average cost for this arm. It is well known that the hospitalization costs for very preterm infants that die during the neonatal period are substantially lower than those of the survivors.(3)
Third, health services costs for 2 years after the initial hospitalization was collected via a patient questionnaire, completed by 842 and 873 parents for the two trial arms. The missing data on a large percentage of study subjects could have resulted in biased estimates for these costs.
Fourth, unit cost of resource items presented in table 1, omit the parenteral nutrition costs that tend to be substantial.(4) Since the trial showed less parenteral nutrition use in the faster arm, the inclusion of these costs (as planned in the protocol), could have had a significant impact on the analyses.
Also, this economic evaluation lacks generalizability, in terms of its applicability to other jurisdictions, as no sensitivity analyses were conducted for a range of cost values for salient resource items that vary significantly across countries with similar economic development. For example, the costs listed for community paediatrician’s visit (£407 per visit) and donor breast milk (£335/litre) are 4 to 6 times higher than the typical costs for these items in the North America.
References
1. Tahir W, Monahan M, Dorling J, et al. Economic evaluation alongside the Speed of Increasing milk Feeds Trial (SIFT). Arch Dis Child Fetal Neonatal Ed. 2020 Nov;105(6):587-592. doi: 10.1136/archdischild-2019-318346.
2. Dorling J, Abbott J, Berrington J, et al; SIFT Investigators Group. Controlled Trial of Two Incremental Milk-Feeding Rates in Preterm Infants. N Engl J Med. 2019 Oct 10;381(15):1434-1443. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1816654.
3. Phibbs CS, Schmitt SK, Cooper M, et al. Birth Hospitalization Costs and Days of Care for Mothers and Neonates in California, 2009-2011. J Pediatr. 2019 Jan;204:118-125.e14. doi: 10.1016/j.jpeds.2018.08.041.
4. Walter E, Liu FX, Maton P, et al. Cost analysis of neonatal and pediatric parenteral nutrition in Europe: a multi-country study. Eur J Clin Nutr. 2012 May;66(5):639-44. doi: 10.1038/ejcn.2011.225.
Dear Editor,
we read with great interest the work by Balasubramanian H et al (1). Their systematic review and meta-analysis included 19 randomised controlled trials comparing umbilical cord milking (UCM) with delayed cord clamping (DCC, 5 studies, 922 newborns) and immediate cord clamping (ICC, 14 studies, 1092 newborns) in preterm infants. They concluded that “… cord milking, as compared to delayed cord clamping, significantly increased the risk of severe intraventricular haemorrhage (IVH) in preterm infants <34 weeks gestation”. We believe that this firm conclusion is not supported by the available data: 1) firstly, the gestational age of population in the four analyzed studies ranges from 23 to 31 weeks gestation in three studies (2-4) and from 24 to 32 weeks in one study with no severe IVH reported (5); 2) secondly, at least 20 of the 24 severe IVH events in the UCM group occurred in newborns less than 28 weeks’ gestation (3), while gestational age of newborns with the remaining 4 IVH events is not reported (thus, it actually might be even zero severe IVH in newborns above 27 weeks gestation). Therefore, the increased risk of severe IVH should be referred only to PREMOD 2 infants less than 28 weeks’ gestation (3), and not also extended to infants with 28-33 weeks’ gestation population.
This metanalysis confirms what we stated in our commentary to PREMOD 2 study (6): UCM procedure demonstrates advantages in comparison to routine practice of ICC at bir...
Dear Editor,
we read with great interest the work by Balasubramanian H et al (1). Their systematic review and meta-analysis included 19 randomised controlled trials comparing umbilical cord milking (UCM) with delayed cord clamping (DCC, 5 studies, 922 newborns) and immediate cord clamping (ICC, 14 studies, 1092 newborns) in preterm infants. They concluded that “… cord milking, as compared to delayed cord clamping, significantly increased the risk of severe intraventricular haemorrhage (IVH) in preterm infants <34 weeks gestation”. We believe that this firm conclusion is not supported by the available data: 1) firstly, the gestational age of population in the four analyzed studies ranges from 23 to 31 weeks gestation in three studies (2-4) and from 24 to 32 weeks in one study with no severe IVH reported (5); 2) secondly, at least 20 of the 24 severe IVH events in the UCM group occurred in newborns less than 28 weeks’ gestation (3), while gestational age of newborns with the remaining 4 IVH events is not reported (thus, it actually might be even zero severe IVH in newborns above 27 weeks gestation). Therefore, the increased risk of severe IVH should be referred only to PREMOD 2 infants less than 28 weeks’ gestation (3), and not also extended to infants with 28-33 weeks’ gestation population.
This metanalysis confirms what we stated in our commentary to PREMOD 2 study (6): UCM procedure demonstrates advantages in comparison to routine practice of ICC at birth in preterm infants, namely less need of RBC transfusions and a trend toward less IVH (both all grades and severe), but probably to delay cord clamping for at least 60 sec while assisting the baby bedside (with tactile stimulation, as in refs 3-4) is the right strategy to protect the newborn and respect the physiology of transition at birth.
1) Balasubramanian H, Ananthan A, Jain V et al. Umbilical cord milking in preterm infants: a systematic review and meta-analysis Arch Dis Child Fetal Neonatal Ed 2020 Nov;105(6):572-580
2) Katheria AC, Truong G, Cousins L, et al. Umbilical cord milking versus delayed cord clamping in preterm infants. Pediatrics 2015;136:61–9.
3) Katheria A, Reister F, Essers J, et al. Association of umbilical cord milking vs delayed umbilical cord clamping with death or severe intraventricular hemorrhage among preterm infants. JAMA 2019;322:1877–86
4) Finn D, Ryan DH, Pavel A, et al. Clamping the Umbilical Cord in Premature Deliveries (CUPiD): Neuromonitoring in the Immediate Newborn Period in a Randomized, Controlled Trial of Preterm Infants Born at <32 Weeks of Gestation. J Pediatr 2019;208:121–6
5) Rabe H, Jewison A, Alvarez RF, et al. Milking compared with delayed cord clamping to increase placental transfusion in preterm neonates: a randomized controlled trial. Obstet Gynecol 2011;117:205–11.
6) Pratesi S, Dani C. Commentary: Association of Umbilical Cord Milking vs. Delayed Umbilical Cord Clamping With Death or Severe Intraventricular Hemorrhage Among Preterm Infants. Front Pediatr 2020 Apr 17;8:178. doi: 10.3389/fped.2020.00178
De Curtis et al reported some changes occurring in perinatal outcomes during lockdown in Lazio region, Italy. In particular, according to their data, preterm deliveries were reduced while stillbirth (SB) rate seems to be three-fold increased respect with the same period of 2019 (1).
We collected the same outcomes in Emilia-Romagna (ER), a northern Italian region with 4.47 million residents. Gestational age at delivery has been obtained by Birth Certificates (CedAP) while SB occurrence was collected from the Surveillance system of SB. This system is active since 2014. It records and audits, in a multidisciplinary way, each single case reported by every birth center of the Region. SB was defined according to WHO as published elsewhere together with other details of the Audit process (2).
In Emilia-Romagna, in the quarter March to May 2020, the one of the national lockdown, there were 22 SB (≥22+0 weeks) out of 6800 singletons births, for a rate of 3.24/1000. For the same quarter, in the previous 6 years, SB rate ranged from 2.86 (22/7687) in 2016 to 4.32 (31/7170) in 2019. According to one-way analysis of variance for 2014-2020 years, SB rate not changed significantly (p value >0.05 for each years of observation).
It has to be highlighted that a small number of events allow to a great variations in the rates, in a phenomenon such as SB that has a very low prevalence. For this reason, a comparison of only two points as previously done (1) could lead artif...
De Curtis et al reported some changes occurring in perinatal outcomes during lockdown in Lazio region, Italy. In particular, according to their data, preterm deliveries were reduced while stillbirth (SB) rate seems to be three-fold increased respect with the same period of 2019 (1).
We collected the same outcomes in Emilia-Romagna (ER), a northern Italian region with 4.47 million residents. Gestational age at delivery has been obtained by Birth Certificates (CedAP) while SB occurrence was collected from the Surveillance system of SB. This system is active since 2014. It records and audits, in a multidisciplinary way, each single case reported by every birth center of the Region. SB was defined according to WHO as published elsewhere together with other details of the Audit process (2).
In Emilia-Romagna, in the quarter March to May 2020, the one of the national lockdown, there were 22 SB (≥22+0 weeks) out of 6800 singletons births, for a rate of 3.24/1000. For the same quarter, in the previous 6 years, SB rate ranged from 2.86 (22/7687) in 2016 to 4.32 (31/7170) in 2019. According to one-way analysis of variance for 2014-2020 years, SB rate not changed significantly (p value >0.05 for each years of observation).
It has to be highlighted that a small number of events allow to a great variations in the rates, in a phenomenon such as SB that has a very low prevalence. For this reason, a comparison of only two points as previously done (1) could lead artifacts.
Moreover, another source of variation is represented by the Italian law which still defines any product of conception prior to 180 days of development (25 weeks and 5 days) as a miscarriage. We already reported that this underestimate SB rate when data collection is performed by using official statistical flow respect with a prospective recording in an active surveillance program (2).
Furthermore, the proportion of very premature births (<31+6 week) and moderate/late premature births (32+0-36+6) was not significantly different between the 2020 national lockdown period and the same calendar period from the previous 6 years (OR 0.88 – CI95% 0.67-1,16 and OR 0.91; CI 95% 0.80-1.03, respectively).
To understand differences with Lazio, it cannot be excluded that in 2020 there was an information bias (3) which led to a greater accuracy in the collection data and greater precision in the case definition in the pandemic than in the previous period. This hypothesis is supported by the very low rate of SB in 2019, much lower than reported in every European region.
Thus, we conclude from our findings that no changes occurred in SB during pandemic despite the rate of first Covid 19 spread in ER was 6.2/1000, almost five times higher than the one reported in Lazio (1.3/1000) (4).
During lockdown several emergency room accesses were significantly lesser requested by patients, including gynecological referrals (5). However, obstetric clinics of the National Health System did not change their offer and Obstetrics units never interrupted their perinatal cares.
In conclusion, statistical artifact or information bias could best explain the observed transitory increase of SB in Lazio rather a direct effect of infection or a supposed reduced utilization of NHS. We hope the findings here reported will be useful for larger data collection (entire set of data is available upon request) since only big databases could reliably conclude about perinatal outcomes.
References
1. De Curtis M, Villani L, Polo A. Increase of stillbirth and decrease of late preterm infants during the COVID-19 pandemic lockdown. Arch Dis Child Fetal Neonatal Ed. 2020 Oct 30:fetalneonatal-2020-320682. doi: 10.1136/archdischild-2020-320682. Epub ahead of print. PMID: 33127736.
2. Po' G, Monari F, Zanni F, Grandi G, Lupi C, Facchinetti F; Stillbirth Emilia-Romagna Audit Group. A regional audit system for stillbirth: a way to better understand the phenomenon. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2019 Aug 5;19 (1):276. doi: 10.1186/s12884-019-2432-2. PMID: 31382995; PMCID: PMC6683556.
3. Kesmodel US. Information bias in epidemiological studies with a special focus on obstetrics and gynecology. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2018 Apr;97(4):417-423
4. Dipartimento della Protezione civile – Presidenza del Consiglio dei Ministri, accessed 13 Nov 2020. < http://www.protezionecivile.gov.it>
5. Grandi G, Del Savio MC, Caroli M, Capobianco G, Dessole F, Tupponi G, Petrillo M, Succu C, Paoletti AM, Facchinetti F. The impact of COVID-19 lockdown on admission to gynecological emergency departments: Results from a multicenter Italian study. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2020 Jun 30. doi: 10.1002/ijgo.13289. Epub ahead of print. PMID: 32602939.
Stillbirths are tragic events with devastating consequences on women and couples: all efforts to better understand, manage and prevent their occurrence are welcome. Nevertheless, we have some concerns on what reported by De Curtis et al, who suggested an increase of stillbirth rate during the COVID-19 pandemic lockdown in Lazio, Italy.
1. First, we do not believe that a crude comparison with the corresponding months of 2019 is a proper control. Stillbirths are rare events, with a variable incidence during the year and alternating phases of low incidence and clusters of cases. The assumption that in the period Mar-May 2020 their number in the Lazio region should have been the same as of Mar-May 2019 is unsubstantiated. Consistently, the incidence reported by the authors in Lazio for 2020 (3.23 ‰) is almost the same of what reported for the same region in 2019 yearly statistics (3.00 ‰) [1] in which stillbirth is defined as a loss after 180 days (25 wks + 5 days). Furthermore, when using the 22 wks definition, reported stillbirth rate for Italy is significantly higher (4.70 ‰) [2].
2. Second, the authors suggest that the supposed increase could be due to reduced visits to hospitals due to the fear of contracting COVID-19. Unfortunately, this claim (that indeed blames women for the loss of their unborn child) is not at all supported by facts, as it wasn’t in the manuscript that the authors cite as a reference. Data from a sample of 2448 women who were pregnant or...
Stillbirths are tragic events with devastating consequences on women and couples: all efforts to better understand, manage and prevent their occurrence are welcome. Nevertheless, we have some concerns on what reported by De Curtis et al, who suggested an increase of stillbirth rate during the COVID-19 pandemic lockdown in Lazio, Italy.
1. First, we do not believe that a crude comparison with the corresponding months of 2019 is a proper control. Stillbirths are rare events, with a variable incidence during the year and alternating phases of low incidence and clusters of cases. The assumption that in the period Mar-May 2020 their number in the Lazio region should have been the same as of Mar-May 2019 is unsubstantiated. Consistently, the incidence reported by the authors in Lazio for 2020 (3.23 ‰) is almost the same of what reported for the same region in 2019 yearly statistics (3.00 ‰) [1] in which stillbirth is defined as a loss after 180 days (25 wks + 5 days). Furthermore, when using the 22 wks definition, reported stillbirth rate for Italy is significantly higher (4.70 ‰) [2].
2. Second, the authors suggest that the supposed increase could be due to reduced visits to hospitals due to the fear of contracting COVID-19. Unfortunately, this claim (that indeed blames women for the loss of their unborn child) is not at all supported by facts, as it wasn’t in the manuscript that the authors cite as a reference. Data from a sample of 2448 women who were pregnant or gave birth during COVID-19 lockdown in Italy [3] show indeed the opposite: concern for their own health was quite low in Italian mothers, while wellbeing of their child and care of their pregnancy were considered the most important tasks during lockdown [4].
3. Ravaldi C, Vannacci A, The COVID-ASSESS dataset - COVID19 related anxiety and stress in prEgnancy, poSt-partum and breaStfeeding during lockdown in Italy. Data in Brief 2020 33, 106440 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dib.2020.106440
4. Ravaldi C, Wilson A, Ricca V, Homer C, Vannacci A, Pregnant women voice their concerns and birth expectations during the COVID-19 pandemic in Italy, Women Birth (2020), doi: 10.1016/j.wombi.2020.07.002
We thank Drs Cowan, de Vries and Groenendaal for their interest in our study.(1) Their main concerns related to our findings that low-grade intraventricular haemorrhages (IVH) were associated with higher rates of cerebral palsy than experienced in their own centres and other published studies, and that other lesions apart from low-grade IVH may explain the higher rates of motor impairment and cerebral palsy noted in our cohorts.
Our cerebral palsy rates were determined at age 8 years, by experienced developmental paediatricians blinded to group and clinical history. Thus we are confident of the robustness of clinical ascertainment. We accept that our reported rates of cerebral palsy in low-grade IVH may be higher than those in some other studies, highlighting that our findings are likely specific to our population rather than others. However, our finding of increased cerebral palsy in low-grade IVH is not isolated, as we identified several studies describing 1.5-2 times the baseline rates in preterm cohorts born <33 weeks’ with low-grade IVH compared with no IVH.(2-4) We acknowledge that our data supports an association between low-grade IVH and cerebral palsy, and at no point did we imply a causal relationship.
We agree that cystic periventricular leukomalacia (cPVL) is a well-established cause of cerebral palsy. Co-existing cPVL in our low-grade IVH groups did not explain the associations with cerebral palsy. The independent relationships between low-gra...
We thank Drs Cowan, de Vries and Groenendaal for their interest in our study.(1) Their main concerns related to our findings that low-grade intraventricular haemorrhages (IVH) were associated with higher rates of cerebral palsy than experienced in their own centres and other published studies, and that other lesions apart from low-grade IVH may explain the higher rates of motor impairment and cerebral palsy noted in our cohorts.
Our cerebral palsy rates were determined at age 8 years, by experienced developmental paediatricians blinded to group and clinical history. Thus we are confident of the robustness of clinical ascertainment. We accept that our reported rates of cerebral palsy in low-grade IVH may be higher than those in some other studies, highlighting that our findings are likely specific to our population rather than others. However, our finding of increased cerebral palsy in low-grade IVH is not isolated, as we identified several studies describing 1.5-2 times the baseline rates in preterm cohorts born <33 weeks’ with low-grade IVH compared with no IVH.(2-4) We acknowledge that our data supports an association between low-grade IVH and cerebral palsy, and at no point did we imply a causal relationship.
We agree that cystic periventricular leukomalacia (cPVL) is a well-established cause of cerebral palsy. Co-existing cPVL in our low-grade IVH groups did not explain the associations with cerebral palsy. The independent relationships between low-grade IVH and cerebral palsy at 8 years remained after adjusting for cPVL [unadjusted OR 2.24 (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.21, 4.16); p=0.011; adjusted for cPVL OR 2.22 (95% CI 1.14, 4.29) p=0.018]. As brain magnetic resonance imaging was not widely available for the cohorts in this study, we are not able to confirm the possibility of other lesions explaining the rates of cerebral palsy observed in our low-grade IVH groups.
Our paper highlights the associations of all grades of IVH with adverse outcomes at school age. Regardless of whether the associations are explained by other brain lesions, the findings highlight the importance of long term follow up in all extremely preterm newborns in regard to risk of neurodevelopmental deficits, including those with low-grade IVH.
Jeanie Cheong, Alicia Spittle, Peter Anderson and Lex Doyle
References:
1) Hollebrandse NL, Spittle AJ, Burnett AC, et al. School-age outcomes following intraventricular haemorrhage in infants born extremely preterm. Arch Dis Child Fetal Neonatal Ed 2020 Jul 30:fetalneonatal-2020-318989. doi: 10.1136/archdischild-2020-318989.
2) Klebermass-Schrehof K, Czaba C, Olischar M, et al. Impact of low-grade intraventricular hemorrhage on long-term neurodevelopmental outcome in preterm infants. Childs Nerv Syst 2012;28:2085–92.
3) Bolisetty S, Dhawan A, Abdel-Latif M, et al. Intraventricular hemorrhage and neurodevelopmental outcomes in extreme preterm infants. Pediatrics 2014;133:55–62.
4) Beaino G, Khoshnood B, Kaminski M, et al. Predictors of cerebral palsy in very preterm infants: the EPIPAGE prospective population-based cohort study. Dev Med Child Neurol 2010;52:e119–25.
Dr O’Shea and colleagues provide useful trainee perspective on the use of videolaryngoscopy as a teaching aid and highlight the need for standardised training packages.
We performed a qualitative study using semi-structured interviews of 22 consultants and trainees in a UK tertiary neonatal unit where videolaryngoscopy is commonly used. Interviews were recorded and transcribed verbatim. Data was analysed using attribute and descriptive coding methods. Framework Analysis was used to interpret the data obtained from interviews.
In our study, videolaryngoscopy was felt to have largely positive effects on facilitating safer training in an era where intubation opportunities are lacking. As with O’Shea et al,(1) our participants felt that videolaryngoscopy allowed considerably easier demonstration of intubation techniques. Interviewees commented that looking at the monitor combined with the movements of the operator and coaching in real-time, assisted eye-hand co-ordination and made it easier to correct technique. Visual feedback would benefit kinaesthetic learning as per the VARK: Visual, Aural, Read/write, and Kinesthetic learning styles, although the existence of these styles is debated.(2,3)
In our study, interviewees felt that use of videolaryngosopy allowed group teaching, and instilled confidence in those watching in what was occurring. This ‘team learning’ aligns with social cognitive theory, where learning experiences are active and social, with re...
Dr O’Shea and colleagues provide useful trainee perspective on the use of videolaryngoscopy as a teaching aid and highlight the need for standardised training packages.
We performed a qualitative study using semi-structured interviews of 22 consultants and trainees in a UK tertiary neonatal unit where videolaryngoscopy is commonly used. Interviews were recorded and transcribed verbatim. Data was analysed using attribute and descriptive coding methods. Framework Analysis was used to interpret the data obtained from interviews.
In our study, videolaryngoscopy was felt to have largely positive effects on facilitating safer training in an era where intubation opportunities are lacking. As with O’Shea et al,(1) our participants felt that videolaryngoscopy allowed considerably easier demonstration of intubation techniques. Interviewees commented that looking at the monitor combined with the movements of the operator and coaching in real-time, assisted eye-hand co-ordination and made it easier to correct technique. Visual feedback would benefit kinaesthetic learning as per the VARK: Visual, Aural, Read/write, and Kinesthetic learning styles, although the existence of these styles is debated.(2,3)
In our study, interviewees felt that use of videolaryngosopy allowed group teaching, and instilled confidence in those watching in what was occurring. This ‘team learning’ aligns with social cognitive theory, where learning experiences are active and social, with regular interaction of colleagues in a real-life setting.(4) This social interaction and kinaesthetic activity results in reflection, thus building on their previous knowledge of intubation as per situated learning theory.(5)
Videolaryngoscopy was felt to reduce anxiety levels, improving patient safety whilst learning. Some participants expressed concerns that gaining proficiency in videolaryngoscopy might place the trainee at a disadvantage at another hospital where videolaryngoscopes were not in common use. Videolaryngoscopy is a useful adjunct for intubation training but cannot completely replace direct laryngoscopy due to some differences in technique, equipment and the lack of availability across centres.
References
1 O’ Shea JE, Kirolos S, Thio M, et al. Neonatal videolaryngoscopy as a teaching aid: the trainees’ perspective. Arch Dis Child FetalNeonatal Ed. Published Online First: 22 September 2020. doi: 10.1136/archdischild-2020-319619.
2 Fleming ND, Mills C. Not another inventory, rather a catalyst for reflection. To Improve the Academy 1992;11,137-155.
3 Husmann PR, O’Loughlin VD. Another Nail in the Coffin for Learning Styles? Disparities among Undergraduate Anatomy Students' Study Strategies, Class Performance, and Reported VARK Learning Styles.Anat Sci Educ 2020;(12)1:6-19.
4 Wenger E. Communities of Practice. Learning, meaning and identity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 2000.
5 Lave J, Wenger E. Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 1991.
Hedermann and colleagues reported a decreased rate of extremely premature birth as a potential beneficial effect of nationwide COVID-19 lockdown in Denmark1. Although this study provides important new evidence that enhances our understanding of the aetiology of extreme prematurity, comparisons with other populations are vital for delineating the mechanisms underlying the observed beneficial effect. Moreover, uncertainty remains about the direct and indirect impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic and its associated lockdowns on live births globally. To begin to address these gaps in knowledge, we used preliminary administrative data from the Brazilian Live Births Information System (SINASC) to assess the effect of COVID-19 and its associated disruptions on prematurity rates in a middle-income country with a high incidence of SARS-CoV-2 infections. Similarly, to Hedermann and colleagues1, we included the months of most intensive social distance interventions (17th March to 31st May 2020)2 and excluded registrations with multiple births. However, to adapt for the Brazilian data, we also excluded congenital abnormalities and used as comparison the same period but only for the year of 2019, due to the Zika virus epidemic that occurred in previous years. We included 613,640 live births from 2019 and 560,691 from 2020. Overall, we observed similar rates of premature births in both years; the proportion of extremely preterm births was 4.57/1000 live births in 2019 vs 4.52/1000 live bi...
Hedermann and colleagues reported a decreased rate of extremely premature birth as a potential beneficial effect of nationwide COVID-19 lockdown in Denmark1. Although this study provides important new evidence that enhances our understanding of the aetiology of extreme prematurity, comparisons with other populations are vital for delineating the mechanisms underlying the observed beneficial effect. Moreover, uncertainty remains about the direct and indirect impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic and its associated lockdowns on live births globally. To begin to address these gaps in knowledge, we used preliminary administrative data from the Brazilian Live Births Information System (SINASC) to assess the effect of COVID-19 and its associated disruptions on prematurity rates in a middle-income country with a high incidence of SARS-CoV-2 infections. Similarly, to Hedermann and colleagues1, we included the months of most intensive social distance interventions (17th March to 31st May 2020)2 and excluded registrations with multiple births. However, to adapt for the Brazilian data, we also excluded congenital abnormalities and used as comparison the same period but only for the year of 2019, due to the Zika virus epidemic that occurred in previous years. We included 613,640 live births from 2019 and 560,691 from 2020. Overall, we observed similar rates of premature births in both years; the proportion of extremely preterm births was 4.57/1000 live births in 2019 vs 4.52/1000 live births in 2020, and very premature births were 8.52/1000 live births in 2019 vs 8.89/1000 live births in 2020. Unlike the reports from Denmark, these preliminary data suggest that Brazil has not experienced a reduction in the prevalence of extremely premature birth during the early months of the COVID-19 pandemic and its associated interventions. It has been hypothesized that the association between the lockdowns and preterm birth rates may be attributed to underlying mechanisms, such as reduced pregnancy-associated stress, increased support systems, altered work practices, governmental financial assistance, and decreased incidence of infections during pregnancy3. In Brazil, it is plausible that the limited and heterogeneously implemented social distance measures and high incidence of SARS-CoV-2 combined with the pre-existing social inequities, substantial background burden of other infectious diseases, and current crises may have compromised the beneficial impact observed in Denmark1. Alternatively, the results observed in Denmark could be a spurious association due to small numbers or an increased number of pregnancies ending in intrauterine death, as highlighted by the authors1. We welcome the presentation of data from Hedermann and colleagues1, but the contrasting results from Brazil highlight the need for international comparisons to better interpret the impact of COVID-19 public health policies4.
Dear Editor,
Show MoreWe read with interest the paper from our colleagues in Toronto on the possible association between the use of diazoxide treatment for hypoglycemia and the onset of necrotizing enterocolitis (NEC). We wish to share our single-center experience on diazoxide and we beg to differ with the authors. Our NICU is a tertiary care center from Midwest Canada that has the least incidence of NEC across all the centers in Canada as per Canadian Neonatal Network (CNN) database. For nearly 2 decades, we have been using diazoxide in our unit, in the treatment of persistent neonatal hypoglycemia among intra-uterine growth retardation, small-for-gestational age, infant of a diabetic mother, and transient hyperinsulinemic hypoglycemia neonates.
Our neonates are comparable to Toronto population, with prematurity, and other risk factors. We have used both moderate doses (5-10mg/kg/day) and higher doses (maximum up to 15mg/kg/day) in 3 divided doses in our practice. Over the last 10 years (between the years 2010-2020), 164 neonates have received diazoxide treatment in our NICU and none of them have had NEC as a complication of treatment during or after the therapy. Common side-effects of diazoxide in infants and children include nausea, vomiting, loss of appetite, headache, dizziness, stomach pain or upset, diarrhea, changes in sense of taste, hypertrichosis (especially in women and children), anxiety, weakness, pruritus or skin rash. We agree as the authors mentioned on...
Dear Sir or Madam!
Nasal CPAP is one of the most important therapies in neonatology. Accordingly, the manufacturers of such devices are very interested in gaining market share. Not all of their "sales arguments" correspond to clinical or physical reality. This is why studies comparing different devices are so extremely important.
The authors claim to have compared three CPAP systems that are referred to as "variable-flow" devices. This refers to CPAP systems that generate their CPAP through one or more jets, corresponding to jet ventilation as it is known in laryngeal surgery. But does the Miniflow CPAP belong in this category? The Miniflow has one inspiratory and one expiratory tube and does not have a jet. Pressure is generated through the expiratory valve of a ventilator. Such CPAP devices are actually called "constant-flow" devices.
Basically, the division into variable-flow and constant-flow devices is considered very confusing and, above all, physically questionable. However, the terms are very persistent. In any case, however, the statement of the study could be supplemented. It shows not only that there is no difference between variable flow devices, but equally no difference between variable and constant flow devices.
Yours sincerely,
Martin Wald
Ravaldi et al. in their letter raise two points of dispute. The first is linked to epidemiological data and the other to the fact that, according to them, a reduction in gynecological checks during pregnancy did not occur in the lockdown of spring 2020. I appreciate their engagement with the article but I disagree.
On the first point (epidemiological data), the difference between the data presented by Ravaldi and those indicated by us is linked to the fact that they mistakenly refer to older years. Ravaldi’s 2019 stillbirth is taken from the Italian Statistical Yearbook 2019, which refers to the entire 2016. Our data, obtained from the CEDAP (hospital discharge database, which records perinatal information on all newborns), are instead those of Mar-May 2019 and Mar-May 2020 (3 months of lockdown).
Show MoreFurthermore, Ravaldi’s stillbirth data starting from 22 weeks were taken from the ISTAT Reproductive Health document published in 2018, which refers to 2015 data. The authors therefore cannot contest the difference in the results because they are using different data sources. A further analysis (to be published) on larger samples on all births in Lazio confirmed a significant difference between stillbirths in the period March-May 2020 compared to the same months in the years 2017-2019 (3.23 vs 1.83 per thousand, p value = 0.014) . The increase in stillbirths in the first half of 2020 was observed in numerous developed and developing countries as well as in Italy (1-...
I read with interest the economic evaluation of Speed of Increasing milk Feeds Trial (SIFT) in preterm infants presented by Tahir and colleagues.(1) While the clinical findings from the SIFT had shown short-term benefits such as lesser TPN days with faster feed increments, and was equivocal for the composite primary outcome of death and disability measured at 24 months, this analysis recommends against faster feed increments based on the cost-effectiveness analyses. The average total costs is shown to be marginally higher for subjects in this arm, with a mean difference of £267 (0.25%). I highlight below many issues that probably affect the conclusions, and the generalizability of the findings, of this economic evaluation.
First, the trial enrolled 1394 and 1399 patients in the two study arms. However, the cost data of initial hospitalization is presented for 1224 and 1246 patients in these arms. It seems that 170 and 153 patients from the two trial arms were lost to follow-up after the initial hospitalization;(2) however, the data for these subjects should not be excluded while calculating the average initial hospitalization costs per subject.
Second, more deaths during the initial hospitalization were reported in the slower increment arm and those probably lowered the average cost for this arm. It is well known that the hospitalization costs for very preterm infants that die during the neonatal period are substantially lower than those of the survivors....
Show MoreDear Editor,
Show Morewe read with great interest the work by Balasubramanian H et al (1). Their systematic review and meta-analysis included 19 randomised controlled trials comparing umbilical cord milking (UCM) with delayed cord clamping (DCC, 5 studies, 922 newborns) and immediate cord clamping (ICC, 14 studies, 1092 newborns) in preterm infants. They concluded that “… cord milking, as compared to delayed cord clamping, significantly increased the risk of severe intraventricular haemorrhage (IVH) in preterm infants <34 weeks gestation”. We believe that this firm conclusion is not supported by the available data: 1) firstly, the gestational age of population in the four analyzed studies ranges from 23 to 31 weeks gestation in three studies (2-4) and from 24 to 32 weeks in one study with no severe IVH reported (5); 2) secondly, at least 20 of the 24 severe IVH events in the UCM group occurred in newborns less than 28 weeks’ gestation (3), while gestational age of newborns with the remaining 4 IVH events is not reported (thus, it actually might be even zero severe IVH in newborns above 27 weeks gestation). Therefore, the increased risk of severe IVH should be referred only to PREMOD 2 infants less than 28 weeks’ gestation (3), and not also extended to infants with 28-33 weeks’ gestation population.
This metanalysis confirms what we stated in our commentary to PREMOD 2 study (6): UCM procedure demonstrates advantages in comparison to routine practice of ICC at bir...
De Curtis et al reported some changes occurring in perinatal outcomes during lockdown in Lazio region, Italy. In particular, according to their data, preterm deliveries were reduced while stillbirth (SB) rate seems to be three-fold increased respect with the same period of 2019 (1).
Show MoreWe collected the same outcomes in Emilia-Romagna (ER), a northern Italian region with 4.47 million residents. Gestational age at delivery has been obtained by Birth Certificates (CedAP) while SB occurrence was collected from the Surveillance system of SB. This system is active since 2014. It records and audits, in a multidisciplinary way, each single case reported by every birth center of the Region. SB was defined according to WHO as published elsewhere together with other details of the Audit process (2).
In Emilia-Romagna, in the quarter March to May 2020, the one of the national lockdown, there were 22 SB (≥22+0 weeks) out of 6800 singletons births, for a rate of 3.24/1000. For the same quarter, in the previous 6 years, SB rate ranged from 2.86 (22/7687) in 2016 to 4.32 (31/7170) in 2019. According to one-way analysis of variance for 2014-2020 years, SB rate not changed significantly (p value >0.05 for each years of observation).
It has to be highlighted that a small number of events allow to a great variations in the rates, in a phenomenon such as SB that has a very low prevalence. For this reason, a comparison of only two points as previously done (1) could lead artif...
Stillbirths are tragic events with devastating consequences on women and couples: all efforts to better understand, manage and prevent their occurrence are welcome. Nevertheless, we have some concerns on what reported by De Curtis et al, who suggested an increase of stillbirth rate during the COVID-19 pandemic lockdown in Lazio, Italy.
Show More1. First, we do not believe that a crude comparison with the corresponding months of 2019 is a proper control. Stillbirths are rare events, with a variable incidence during the year and alternating phases of low incidence and clusters of cases. The assumption that in the period Mar-May 2020 their number in the Lazio region should have been the same as of Mar-May 2019 is unsubstantiated. Consistently, the incidence reported by the authors in Lazio for 2020 (3.23 ‰) is almost the same of what reported for the same region in 2019 yearly statistics (3.00 ‰) [1] in which stillbirth is defined as a loss after 180 days (25 wks + 5 days). Furthermore, when using the 22 wks definition, reported stillbirth rate for Italy is significantly higher (4.70 ‰) [2].
2. Second, the authors suggest that the supposed increase could be due to reduced visits to hospitals due to the fear of contracting COVID-19. Unfortunately, this claim (that indeed blames women for the loss of their unborn child) is not at all supported by facts, as it wasn’t in the manuscript that the authors cite as a reference. Data from a sample of 2448 women who were pregnant or...
We thank Drs Cowan, de Vries and Groenendaal for their interest in our study.(1) Their main concerns related to our findings that low-grade intraventricular haemorrhages (IVH) were associated with higher rates of cerebral palsy than experienced in their own centres and other published studies, and that other lesions apart from low-grade IVH may explain the higher rates of motor impairment and cerebral palsy noted in our cohorts.
Our cerebral palsy rates were determined at age 8 years, by experienced developmental paediatricians blinded to group and clinical history. Thus we are confident of the robustness of clinical ascertainment. We accept that our reported rates of cerebral palsy in low-grade IVH may be higher than those in some other studies, highlighting that our findings are likely specific to our population rather than others. However, our finding of increased cerebral palsy in low-grade IVH is not isolated, as we identified several studies describing 1.5-2 times the baseline rates in preterm cohorts born <33 weeks’ with low-grade IVH compared with no IVH.(2-4) We acknowledge that our data supports an association between low-grade IVH and cerebral palsy, and at no point did we imply a causal relationship.
We agree that cystic periventricular leukomalacia (cPVL) is a well-established cause of cerebral palsy. Co-existing cPVL in our low-grade IVH groups did not explain the associations with cerebral palsy. The independent relationships between low-gra...
Show MoreDr O’Shea and colleagues provide useful trainee perspective on the use of videolaryngoscopy as a teaching aid and highlight the need for standardised training packages.
We performed a qualitative study using semi-structured interviews of 22 consultants and trainees in a UK tertiary neonatal unit where videolaryngoscopy is commonly used. Interviews were recorded and transcribed verbatim. Data was analysed using attribute and descriptive coding methods. Framework Analysis was used to interpret the data obtained from interviews.
In our study, videolaryngoscopy was felt to have largely positive effects on facilitating safer training in an era where intubation opportunities are lacking. As with O’Shea et al,(1) our participants felt that videolaryngoscopy allowed considerably easier demonstration of intubation techniques. Interviewees commented that looking at the monitor combined with the movements of the operator and coaching in real-time, assisted eye-hand co-ordination and made it easier to correct technique. Visual feedback would benefit kinaesthetic learning as per the VARK: Visual, Aural, Read/write, and Kinesthetic learning styles, although the existence of these styles is debated.(2,3)
Show MoreIn our study, interviewees felt that use of videolaryngosopy allowed group teaching, and instilled confidence in those watching in what was occurring. This ‘team learning’ aligns with social cognitive theory, where learning experiences are active and social, with re...
Hedermann and colleagues reported a decreased rate of extremely premature birth as a potential beneficial effect of nationwide COVID-19 lockdown in Denmark1. Although this study provides important new evidence that enhances our understanding of the aetiology of extreme prematurity, comparisons with other populations are vital for delineating the mechanisms underlying the observed beneficial effect. Moreover, uncertainty remains about the direct and indirect impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic and its associated lockdowns on live births globally. To begin to address these gaps in knowledge, we used preliminary administrative data from the Brazilian Live Births Information System (SINASC) to assess the effect of COVID-19 and its associated disruptions on prematurity rates in a middle-income country with a high incidence of SARS-CoV-2 infections. Similarly, to Hedermann and colleagues1, we included the months of most intensive social distance interventions (17th March to 31st May 2020)2 and excluded registrations with multiple births. However, to adapt for the Brazilian data, we also excluded congenital abnormalities and used as comparison the same period but only for the year of 2019, due to the Zika virus epidemic that occurred in previous years. We included 613,640 live births from 2019 and 560,691 from 2020. Overall, we observed similar rates of premature births in both years; the proportion of extremely preterm births was 4.57/1000 live births in 2019 vs 4.52/1000 live bi...
Show MorePages