Recent discussions

  • Emily Oliver

    We welcome the range of interventions explored for this topic and useful analysis. We agree that there are significant gaps in research, and given the practical limitations of immersion, indicators of the most effective of the other options, including combinations, will indeed be useful and important going forward. A further concern is the possibility of different treatment pathways for exertion and non-exertion/classic heat stroke hyperthermia. For lay responder educational purposes, does the Task Force consider it necessary for the lay responder to differentiate or can the same treatment recommendations be applied (perhaps as good practice points) as for exertional hyperthermia?
    In following article:
  • Finlay Macneil Macneil

    1. The recommendation to immerse adults with exertional heat exhaustion or stroke in ice slush carries considerable resource implications and will generally only be available in large "fun run" type events 2. I would suggest in the knowledge gaps that research on the effect of the rate of cooling on the recovery from heat exhaustion or stroke is needed as well
    In following article:
  • James Pribble

    Agree with the recommendations given the evidence that is presented. Appreciate the discussions from experienced neonatal providers, but at present the evidence points towards no advantage for immediate DL in non-vigorous infants with or without tracheal suctioning. These are recommendations and as the evidence is low, discretion is still in the hands of the providing physician.
    In following article:
  • Dora Stinson

    Meconium in the amniotic fluid is a flag for increased risk to the depressed baby at birth, and the time for suctioning will vary. The key is to be prepared to suction below the cords if the airway is obstructed - with laryngoscope, endotracheal tube, suction, meconium adapter - when needed; this may be initially, or after going through the steps of MRSOPA. The wording of the current recommendation does allow this.
    In following article:
  • James Cummings

    Excellent update. Balanced and rigorous. Recommendations allow for individual decision-making.
    In following article:
  • Luis Miranda

    Congratulations for the outstanding work. The results of the doing the systematic review and meta-analysis studies made me be convinced that it is about time to stop doing (regular) tracheal intubation and aspiration on every non-vigorous newborn.
    In following article:
  • Luis Eduardo Miranda

    Taking into consideration the results of the systematic review and the meta-analysis, and until future RCT´s prove oyherwise, I think it is about time to stop recommending routine tracheal intubation and aspiration in every non vigorous baby born with meconium-stained amniotic fluid. Being a NRP instructor in Brazil for a long time, I have testified the great difficulty most of the trainees have to perform intubation in 20 seconds and in his first attemp. It sounds better to teach how to ventilate properly these babies rather than wasting time trying to intubate.
    In following article:
  • DAIHAI CHOI

    The data(do not intubation and do not suction) are weak. I alway knews intubation and suctioning to be helpful in the delivery room or ER. and I have found that infants that get intubated and their airway cleared do much better. I understand that if you do not have someone that is good at intubation, it can waste valuable time. if you have capable staff for intubation, the infant recovers much faster and a lot of them do not need to have prolonged stays in intensive care unit for long because of an effective resuscitation. and also the motive to eliminate this step (suctioning) was more to protect hospitals for not having trained providers in the hospital in cases of meconium stained fluid. Better to educate and train than keep dumbing down the standards.
    In following article:
  • ANA CLAUDIA SOARES

    We agree with current recommendations. These studies reflect our current clinical experience. In my hospital we have not seen any increased incidence of MAS or PPHN with these recommendations. We have no control about long-term outcomes as they follow up in private clinics and we don't have a unified system of clinical information
    In following article:
  • Nell Tharpe

    Agree with author's recommendations. It would be useful to clarify that all nonvigorous infants with meconium should be gently suctioned to remove meconium from oropharynx and hypopharynx before stimulation, using the suction method that is within the scope of practice of the individual providing care to the infant. This may be performed with a suction catheter, bulb syringe in the cheek, or ET based on clinical experience and competence. When intubation is obviously needed for the most depressed neonates then brief suctioning can be done prn if there is visible meconium to allow clear passage of an ET tube as needed for optimal ventilation. Many practitioners practice in community settings and nurses may be the first to begin the initial steps. This clarification based on scope of practice and competency can aid in directing actions in each clinical setting. The key message is that all non-breathing infants (meconium and clear fluid) should be suctioned before PPV, with suctioning being brief and gentle, and followed by the rest of the initial steps before initiation of PPV.
    In following article:
Next Page