NRP Versus PALS for Infants Outside the Delivery Room: Not If, but When?

Background Both the Neonatal Resuscitation Program and Pediatric Advanced Life Support guidelines can be used for infants requiring cardiopulmonary resuscitation outside the delivery room. Each set of guidelines has supporting algorithms for resuscitation; however, there are no current recommendations for transitioning older infants outside the delivery room. Objective To provide background information on the algorithms in the Neonatal Resuscitation Program and Pediatric Advanced Life Support guidelines and to discuss the role that nurses and advanced practice nurses play in advancing scientific research on resuscitation. Content Covered Summaries of both sets of guidelines, differences in practices, and recommendations for practice changes will be discussed. Discussion Provider preference and unit practice determine which guidelines are used for infants outside the delivery room. Providers in pediatric intensive care units and pediatric cardiac intensive care units often use the Pediatric Advanced Life Support guidelines, whereas providers in neonatal intensive care units use the Neonatal Resuscitation Program guidelines for infants of the same age. The variation in resuscitation practices for infants outside the delivery room can negatively affect resuscitation outcomes.

Improved Survival of Periviable Infants after Alteration of the Threshold of Viability by the Neonatal Resuscitation Program 2015

Periviable infants (PIs) born at 22–25 weeks gestational age (wGA) have a variable survival rate (49.7–86.2%) among hospitals. One factor involved in this difference may be the definition of the threshold of viability. The American Academy of Pediatrics revised the neonatal resuscitation program in late 2015 (NRP 2015) and altered the threshold of viability from 23 to 22 wGA. The impact on the survival of PIs after the guideline alteration has seldom been discussed. Since 2016, the unit of this study has implemented the renewed guideline for PIs. We retrospectively reviewed and analyzed the survival and clinical variables of PIs before and after implementation of the guideline, which included a 10-year cohort in a single center in Taiwan. There were 168 PIs enrolled between 2010 and 2019 (Epoch-I, 2010–2015; Epoch-II, 2016–2019), after excluding those with congenital anomalies and parent-decided comfort care. Compared to those in Epoch-I, the PIs in Epoch-II had significantly higher odds ratios (2.602) (95% confidence interval: 1.170–5.789; p = 0.019) for survival. Younger gestational age, small size for gestational age, cesarean delivery, low blood pH at birth, and surfactant therapeutic treatment were found to be significant risk factors associated with the survival of PIs (p < 0.05 for each). The altered threshold of viability by NRP 2015 may impact the survival of PIs. However, long-term follow-up for surviving PI is required in the future.

Code Blue Events in the Neonatal and Pediatric Intensive Care Units at a Tertiary Care Children's Hospital

Objective The authors aim to compare all code blue events, regardless of the need for chest compressions, in the neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) versus the pediatric intensive care unit (PICU). We hypothesize that code events in the two units differ, reflecting different disease processes. Study Design This is a retrospective analysis of 107 code events using the code narrator, which is an electronic medical record of real-time code documentation, from April 2018 to March 2019. Events were divided into two groups, NICU and PICU. Neonatal resuscitation program algorithm was used for NICU events and a pediatric advanced life-support algorithm was used for PICU events. Events and outcomes were compared using univariate analysis. The Mann–Whitney test and linear regressions were done to compare the total code duration, time from the start of code to airway insertion, and time from airway insertion to end of code event. Results In the PICU, there were almost four times more code blue events per month and more likely to involve patients with seizures and no chronic condition. NICU events more often involved ventilated patients and those under 2 months of age. The median code duration for NICU events was 2.5 times shorter than for PICU events (11.5 vs. 29 minutes), even when adjusted for patient characteristics. Survival to discharge was not different in the two groups. Conclusion Our study suggests that NICU code events as compared with PICU code events are more likely to be driven by airway problems, involve patients <2 months of age, and resolve quickly once airway is taken care of. This supports the use of a ventilation-focused neonatal resuscitation program for patients in the NICU. Key Points

Neonatal Resuscitation

The majority of neonates born in the United States breathe spontaneously and do not require special assistance, but approximately 10% require some intervention, and less than 1% require extensive resuscitation measures. Although the number of infants delivered in the emergency department is unknown, out-of-hospital births have been increasing; thus, pediatric emergency physicians should be prepared for the possibility of a neonatal resuscitation in the emergency department. The acute resuscitation of the neonate should follow the Neonatal Resuscitation Program algorithm and includes assessment of heart rate, color, tone, and respiratory effort within the first minute of life. Initial treatment requires warming and gentle stimulation. Positive pressure ventilation should be initiated if the heart rate is <100 beats per minute, and chest compressions should be initiated if the heart rate is <60 beats per minute.

Knowledge of General Practitioner Doctors and Midwives Who Has and Has Not Attended Neonatal Resuscitation Course Has No Significant Difference

Introduction: Infant death is most prominent in the neonatal period. The success of neonatal resuscitation practice has many contributing factors. One of which is the health workers’ knowledge of the Neonatal Resuscitation Program (NRP) algorithm. Therefore, it is necessary to conduct studies to evaluate the health workers’ knowledge of the Neonatal Resuscitation Program who are educated in neonatal resuscitation course and has taken part in Neonatal Life Support practice in primary health care (PHC) Objective: This study aims to analyze the knowledge of general practitioners and midwives who has or has not attended in neonatal resuscitation course in Surabaya PHC Methods and Materials: this research is descriptive, cross-sectional research. All Basic Emergency Obstetric and Newborn Care (BEmONC) PHC in Surabaya which are Jagir PHC, Banyu Urip PHC, Medokan Ayu PHC, Tanah kali Kedinding PHC, Tanjungsari PHC, Balongsari PHC, Sememi PHC, Simomulyo PHC is included in this research from 2018 to 2019. A nine-item questionnaire referenced from The Textbook of Neonatal Resuscitation 7th Edition is given to ten respondents in each BEmONC PHC. Results and Discussion: from the total sample of 78 respondents, 32 (41,0%) receive a high score, 20 (25,7%) receive a middle score, and 26 (33,3%) receive a low score. The data shows that there is no significant score difference between respondents who has or has not participate in the NRP course (p=0,419). Conclusion: There is no correlation between difference knowledge midwives and general practitioners who had and had not attended neonatal resuscitation training at basic emergency obstetric and newborn care in public health center Surabaya.