The PDA, indomethacin and pulmonary hemorrhages.

In a comment on a recent post, Martin Kluckow pointed out that they have just had published a moderately sized RCT. It was supposed to be larger, but intravenous indomethacin became unavailable, so they had to stop the trial. (Kluckow M, Jeffery M, Gill A, Evans N: A randomised placebo-controlled trial of early treatment of the patent ductus arteriosus. Archives of Disease in Childhood – Fetal and Neonatal Edition 2013).

The trial design was to perform a cardiac ultrasound prior to 12 hours of age, and then to randomize the babes to be treated or not with indomethacin if they found a large PDA, which was defined by the size of the PDA on colour Doppler (>1.8 mm in the first 5 hours of life, then progressively smaller threshold until 12h). The primary outcome was survival without serious brain injury on head ultrasound, and the plan had been to randomize 170 babies < 29 weeks to each group. When indomethacin became unavailable they terminated the trial with 44 indo and 48 placebo babies.

The trial is a fascinating example of the questions we need to be addressing to figure out what to do about the PDA. Infants who were screened and did not have a large PDA were followed and treated according to clinical criteria. One thing I would really have liked in this article is a description of the outcomes of the screened babies who did not have a large PDA, there is a statement in the discussion that the babies with a small PDA had an 80% chance of spontaneous closure, but I see no other data from those babies, which I think would be super interesting.

Placebo group babies could be treated with open label indomethacin within the 1st 72 hours if they had a pulmonary hemorrhage, or severe hypotension thought to be PDA related, and a large PDA on echo. They could also get treated after 72 hours if they had a clinical diagnosis of PDA confirmed to be large on echo.

As for the results, there were fewer intraventricular hemorrhages in the indomethacin group (2/44 vs 6/48), but this may just be due to chance (p=0.21) the primary outcome was very similar between the 2 groups, 8 vs 9. Early pulmonary hemorrhages were much less frequent in the indomethacin group, 1/44 vs 10/48, pulmonary hemorrhage in total was less common with indomethacin, a difference which was probably not due to chance, but did not reach conventional significance (p=0.07).

The reduction in significant pulmonary hemorrhage (to be included there had to be a significant clinical deterioration with the bleeding), is consistent with the secondary analysis of the TIPP trial, and with what we know about the likely pathogenesis of this complication.

Infants were not included in this study if they already had a significant bleed on the ultrasound done at the same time as the echocardiogram. In this way it resembles the multicenter IVH prevention trial by Laura Ment and colleagues, who screened with head ultrasound before 12 hours, and randomized babies to indomethacin or placebo if the head ultrasound was normal, so they could be treated by 12 hours. In the TIPP trial in contrast, there was no ultrasound before indomethacin, and the infants were all treated by 6 hours of age. The relative reduction in IVH was similar in those 2 trials. The reason for bringing up these details is that the babies in this new trial were treated at a mean age of 9 hours, I think it is likely that to have the greatest effect on IVH treatment needs to be started within 6 hours, but clearly from Ment’s trial, even at 12 hours there is a major reduction in serious IVH if you haven,t already had a bleed.

I think this trial really shows us one way forward. If we can confirm in a larger trial that these results are generalizable, and that long term outcomes are at least as good or better with very early targeted treatment, then it should become standard of care, and will force us all to find a way of having echocardiogram capabilities available 24 hours a day at short notice for all of the small preterm infants that we admit.

One more comment, the authors of the trial note that TIPP showed a reduction in severe IVH, but no improvement in long term neurological or developmental outcomes. They, and others, suggest that this may be due to balancing cerebral vasoconstriction, which impairs cerebral perfusion in infants who don’t have IVH. I would suggest another explanation, that, if the only cerebral effect of indomethacin is prevention of IVH (which TIPP confirmed; a reduction from 13% to 9%) then the study was very underpowered. In other words if 4% of the indomethacin babies had a benefit, and there was no adverse effect of indomethacin then a study of several thousand babies would be required to demonstrate improved outcomes. (This is not meant as a criticism of TIPP which was an important trial, it just point out the limitation of most of our evidence in neonatology). Alternatively, secondary analysis of higher risk subgroups might show a benefit, which is exactly what the results of TIPP do show, in boys, who have more IVH, there actually were better long term outcomes with indomethacin compared to placebo. What this suggests to me is that targeting the babies at highest risk for severe IVH may well be a reasonable approach.

It is also possible to reduce the impacts on the cerebral circulation by simply giving the indomethacin slowly. One study using Doppler ultrasound found a major reduction in the adverse changes with indomethacin simply by giving it over 30 minutes.

Finally this trial also confirms my other impression: that PH is getting more common. In the TIPP trial, with an average GA of about 26 weeks, similar to this trial, the incidence was about 12% in the controls and about 8% with indomethacin. In this new study the control group incidence was over 20%. Perhaps this is related to improving survival in the first few days, overall mortality in TIPP was 20% (to 18 months) in this study it was 10% (to discharge). There were also probably fewer 23 week gestation babies in TIPP despite the similar mean gestation. Perhaps that is why there are more PH today, but what is clear is that this is a serious complication, with a high rate of developing severe IVH simultaneously with the pulmonary hemorrhage, and a high rate of bronchopulmonary dysplasia.

Posted in Neonatal Research | Tagged , , , | 1 Comment

PDA shunts and extubation

Following on from my recent post about PEEP levels and PDA shunts, this new article from Perth. The authors prospectively enrolled very immature infants (< 28 weeks) before a planned early extubation and did echocardiograms before and after. The mean airway pressure before extubation was 7 and the mean CPAP pressure afterward was 5. (Wagh D, Gill A: Is extubation associated with changes in ductal and pulmonary blood flow in extremely preterm neonates? Journal of Paediatrics and Child Health 2013, 49(12):1052-1056).

The authors did the study as they had a run of pulmonary hemorrhages in tiny babies after extubation, and they were wondering if it was the extubation that did it. We have seen a similar intermittent clustering of cases of PH, and have wondered the same thing. We have even sometimes delayed extubation because we were worried about the possibility, not so much because we thought that extubation might increase the risks, but dealing with a serious hemorrhage in an extubated baby is really problematic. Trying to intubate when there is blood flowing through the cords in a 600g baby is not simple!

In the 20 babies that they studied there was no change in the PDA diameter, left pulmonary artery flow or the PDA flow between 5 minutes before and 20 minutes after extubation, even in the 3 babies that went on to develop PH (admittedly 2 of the 3 were several days after extubation).

I don’t know if this complication is getting more frequent everywhere, but it is another reason I think for reconsidering prophylactic indomethacin which seem to reduce severe PH, at least in a secondary analysis from the TIPP trial.

Posted in Neonatal Research | Tagged , | 2 Comments

Omega 3 containing lipid emulsions for the preterm: time for a large RCT

A recent small RCT from Turkey, n=80 (Beken S, Dilli D, Fettah ND, Kabatas EU, Zenciroglu A, Okumus N: The influence of fish-oil lipid emulsions on retinopathy of prematurity in very low birth weight infants: A randomized controlled trial. Early Hum Dev 2013) suggests that retinopathy might be less frequent if we used a lipid emulsion that contained significant amounts of omega3 fatty acids. The study only had 80 infants in the two groups (40 with soybean based Intralipid and the other 40 had SMOFlipid, Soybean, MCT, Olive Oil and Fish Oil based). Babies were very low birth weight (under 1500g) and very preterm (below 32 weeks. Retinopathy occurred in 33% of the Intralipid and 5% of the SMOFLipid group.

SMOFlipid is now licensed in Canada (without any approved indication for the newborn) and is licensed in Europe with an approved indication, I have heard, for neonatal use. The total number of babies in RCTs of SMOFlipid was about 100 before this new trial and now approaches 200. Other observational data, and previous small RCTs all suggest benefit, with a potential reduction in BPD and in cholestasis, and in biochemical indices of lipid tolerance.

Intralipid was introduced into neonatal use over 40 years ago, with almost no objective evaluation. We can’t let this happen again. The time has come to perform a large pragmatic RCT comparing different lipid preparations in very preterm infants. We need to know for sure if there are benefits, and also if it is safe, in our uniquely sensitive group of patients.

Posted in Neonatal Research | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

PEEP and ductal shunts

I never thought that modest increase in PEEP would have a real effect on ductal shunting. As the size of the ductal shunt depends on the pressure gradient across the PDA and the resistance of the vessel, in order to really have an effect on the size of the shunt pulmonary vascular resistance would have to significantly increase, and lead to an increase in PA pressure. Increasing PEEP from 4 to 6 or 7 seemed to me to be unlikely to have an effect. I assumed that most PVR is due to arteriolar resistance vessels and that the main effect of PEEP would probably be to compress the capillary bed.

I may have to think again.

This study evaluating hemodynamics by ultrasound (Fajardo MF, Claure N, Swaminathan S, Sattar S, Vasquez A, D’Ugard C, Bancalari E: Effect of Positive End-Expiratory Pressure on Ductal Shunting and Systemic Blood Flow in Preterm Infants with Patent Ductus Arteriosus Neonatology 2013, 105(1):9-13) in 16 preterm infants with fairly large PDA examined the effects of either increasing the PEEP by 3 (from 5 to 8 in all but one infant, who started at 4) or decreasing the PEEP by 3 (to a minimum of 2). The unblinded study showed a very small decrease in Left Ventricular Output with PEEP of 8, compared to baseline, and no change in SVC flow. Which means that ductal shunting was reduced a bit. A couple of provisos, the median LVO was actually lowest at 2 cmH2O of PEEP, although this was not significantly different, presumably because the direction of change was more variable, and they were using non-parametric statistics (appropriately).  The change in LVO was actually less than 5%, which is probably within the margin of error of the measurement.

The babies in the study had fairly good lung function, with a mean FiO2 of about 25%. Babies with stiffer lungs would be likely to have even less impact of PEEP on the PVR.

So it looks possible that increasing PEEP to 8 might indeed have a very small effect on ductal shunting, if the infant has fairly good lung function. There was no impact on cerebral oxygenation, and a very tiny increase in TcPCO2.

Posted in Neonatal Research | Tagged , , | Comments Off on PEEP and ductal shunts

Acid suppression doesn’t work, and it’s not safe. pHunny how we got here.

Maybe it’s not pHunny at all.

A good quality review article about the use of acid blockade for treating what are sometimes called ‘symptoms of reflux’. Rosen R: Gastroesophageal reflux in infants: More than just a pHenomenon. JAMA Pediatrics 2013.

Although the focus is on infants, not just neonates, the conclusions are I think identical:

1. There is no way to diagnose reflux clinically, None of the scoring systems, nor any individual symptom discriminates between infants with and without reflux.

2. Non-acid reflux is at least as frequent, and as important, or as lacking in importance, as acid reflux

3. Acid suppression worsens non-acid reflux, and is of variable efficacy in suppressing acid.

4. Acid blockade is toxic. It increases infection rates, including chest infections, adn reduces calcium absorption from the diet.  A strong shift away from acid-suppression therapy in infants has occurred because of the adverse effects, lack of efficacy, and increase of nonacid reflux burden relative to acid burden.

We hopefully will have the same shift away from acid blockade in neonatology, where there is even less evidence of benefit.

The same review article refers, more briefly, to the use of pro-motility agents:

Unfortunately, all well-studied motility agents have been removed from the market because of adverse effects or carry black box warnings because the risk outweighs the benefit. Cisapride, a serotonin agonist that improved esophageal, gastric, and intestinal motility, has been removed from the market because of fatal cardiac arrhythmias. Metoclopramide hydrochloride, a receptor agonist for dopamine D2 and a serotonin 4 that improves gastric motility and may increase lower esophageal sphincter tone, has a black box warning for irreversible neurologic adverse effects, and all of the major adult and pediatric gastroenterology organizations state that the drug is not recommended because of the potential harm and lackluster efficacy.

The only thing I would change for the newborn is not ‘lackluster efficacy’ but ‘lack of efficacy’!

Posted in Neonatal Research | Tagged | 4 Comments

Neonatal Updates: back after brief blogging break

After a trip to Europe for ongoing planning for the HIP trial, (link on the side bar) and several days getting over the jet-lag and trying to catch up, I am ready to get going again.

So here is my usual idiosyncratic and personal selection of things that have recently caught my eye from trawling through recent publications,

First something related to the HIP trial hypotheses:

Wong FY, Silas R, Hew S, Samarasinghe T, Walker AM: Cerebral oxygenation is highly sensitive to blood pressure variability in sick preterm infants. PLoS One 2012, 7(8):e43165. (open access) There are a number of ways of addressing how BP variability affects cerebral oxygen delivery, this group used a couple of techniques, and show that variability of BP is often associated with variability in the cerebral oxygenation measured by NIRS. The association was closer in the infants who were most critically ill.

Olhager E, Nold-Petry CA, Joshi MS, Doery JCG, Samarasinghe T, Walker AM, Wong FY: Preterm lambs given intravenous dopamine show increased dopamine in their cerebrospinal fluid. Acta Paediatrica 2013. Also HIP relevant, this study shows that preterm lambs do not have an intact blood brain barrier when it comes to dopamine. As dopamine is an important neurotransmitter, this might be very significant. Apparently there is already some data that this occurs in preterm babies as well, which I was not aware of, but I should have been as it was published in J Pediatr by Istvan Seri some time ago, (1984). That paper only included a very small number of infants, but looks like reliable data that sometimes CSF dopamine levels do go up when you give preterm babies dopamine. Another reason for trying to find out if it is a good thing to do, or not.

Combs CA, Gravett M, Garite TJ, Hickok DE, Lapidus J, Porreco R, Rael J, Grove T, Morgan TK, Clewell W et al: Amniotic fluid infection, inflammation, and colonization in preterm labor with intact membranes. American journal of obstetrics and gynecology 2013. In preterm labour with intact membranes, the authors performed amniocentesis, and using molecular and culture techniques looked for bacteria and or IL6 concentrations. They had 27 samples that were ‘infected’ (which means either a positive culture or microbial 16s rDNA detected, as well as an increase in IL6) and another 36 with high IL6 concentrations but no bugs. The outcome of interest was a composite of stillbirth; neonatal death; respiratory distress syndrome (RDS); grade 3 or 4 intraventricular hemorrhage; necrotizing enterocolitis; or culture-positive neonatal sepsis. Amniotic fluid that showed either infection or severe inflammation had significantly worse outcomes than those that were either neither or had positive cultures with no inflammation. A group with mild inflammation were intermediate. This really interesting data is only compromised by the authors inventing a term Amniotic Inflammatory Response Syndrome (AIRS) which think we can do without!

More buggy stuff:

Beckstrom AC, Cleman PE, Cassis-Ghavami FL, Kamitsuka MD: Surveillance study of bacterial contamination of the parent’s cell phone in the nicu and the effectiveness of an anti-microbial gel in reducing transmission to the hands. J Perinatol 2013, 33(12):960-963. We have just started allowing cell phone use in the hospital, as they don’t interfere with medical equipment, any more than they cause planes to crash. Unfortunately they are dirty, and the hands that carry them are dirty with the same bugs, and using antibacterial gel after using your cell phone doesn’t get them clean. Maybe we shall have to go back to leaving them at home, or, in my case, in my office or wherever it was I put it down last time, or maybe I left it in the car…

Posted in Neonatal Research | Leave a comment

Why we care

Many of you will have already seen this video, but watch it anyway. I hesitated before putting this link, as every time I watch this it brings back painful, but wonderful memories.

Anyway, this is why we do what we do.

http://player.vimeo.com/video/78393869

Posted in Neonatal Research | 2 Comments

Parents advocate for equality for preterm infants

The president of the Canadian Premature Babies Foundation, Katharina Staub, has just had a letter published in the CMAJ. The letter was in response to the article by Dan and Beau Batton, and emphasizes many of the points that they brought up. It seems to be free access http://www.cmaj.ca/content/early/2013/10/28/cmaj.130268.citation/reply#cmaj_el_716559, and I would urge you to read it: the voices of the parents have often been missing form this debate, lets hope that is starting to change.

One point that Katharina makes very strongly is the way these position statements, and their recommendations for counseling, always include a long list of complications, potential impairments, and everything that limits the lives of preterm babies, but no balancing list of ‘what preterm babies and children can do, how they live happy lives and what they bring to their families and communities.’

Talking to parents and only focusing on the negative does not give a balanced view of the situation, and surely we must be balanced.

Posted in Neonatal Research | Tagged , | 5 Comments

Probiotics work, they really, really, work! (And they are safe)

The Proprems study that I have referred to a couple of times before has now been published. This was a multicenter RCT of a probiotic preparation in 1100 very preterm infants less than 1500 grams and less than 32 weeks. The primary outcome of the trial was late onset sepsis. We now have good evidence from a large number of randomized trials that probiotics have no effect on late onset sepsis, I guess when this trial was being planned that wasn’t so clear. The babies were enrolled before 72 hours of age, and received their probiotics whenever they were getting more than 1 mL of milk every 4 hours. The preparation contained 2 bifidobacteria (infantis and lactis) and a probiotic streptococcus, S thermophilus.

The results showed a reduction of necrotizing enterocolitis from 4.4% in the control arm to 2% in the probiotic group, which was statistically significant. So even in a low risk group, with high breast feeding rates (over 96%) and very high quality NICU care, probiotics do exactly what they have done in the other studies: a reduction of 50 to 60% in the frequency of stage 2 NEC.

In fact, and in contrast to what I said in the first paragraph, there was a small effect on late onset sepsis, a reduction which could have been due to chance, (p=0.16). I await the next Cochrane review to see if that changes the overall conclusion of no effect, but, if there is an effect, it is certainly not huge.

Interestingly the incidence of NEC in the ANZNN annual report, among babies less than 28 weeks in 2010 was 10.4%. This is very similar to the CNN annual report (we don’t divide up the GA exactly the same way, but NEC under 29 weeks in the new 2012 CNN report was 8.1%). So the babies enrolled in the Proprems study were a lower risk group, mostly by design I think, with a range up to 32 weeks GA, but it would be interesting to know the risk profile of the non-enrolled infants, perhaps in the next version of CONSORT a report of some basic summary characteristics of non-enrolled patients could be added.

The published trials of probiotics now include over 5000 preterm babies. There is not one report of an adverse event among the 2500 or so randomized to probiotics. We don’t have that sort of safety information for anything else we do in neonatology.

Another fascinating detail, the probiotic preparation used was ABCDophilus, which is manufactured in New Jersey by Solgar. Yes, made in the USA. (www.solgar.com).

Posted in Neonatal Research | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

GE Reflux… again

Esomeprazole is one of the Proton pump inhibitors that is quite effective at reducing gastric acid production. This RCT of 51 infants (preterms to 1 month of age) randomized babies that had symptoms that were interpreted as being due to reflux. The study was really nicely done, with video monitoring, Multichannel intraluminal impedance, and cardiorespiratory monitoring.

What did they show, well the esomeprazole did what it was supposed to and reduced the number of episodes of acid reflux. There was no change in overall reflux episodes, again as you would expect. Also, as I would expect, I don’t know if you are with me in this expectation but there was absolutely no effect on any clinical outcomes: just as much bradycardia, just as much desaturation, gagging, back arching, irritability and crying or fussiness.

This confirms what previous data have already shown. That there is no reliable clinical way to diagnose reflux (apart from actual vomiting), there is no clinical score or any other way to tell which babies might have acid esophagitis other than testing for acid and looking for esophagitis.

Symptoms thought to be related to acid tend to improve with time, but they don’t improve any faster if you block acid production.

Posted in Neonatal Research | Tagged , | 1 Comment