Amsbaugh, Amy

Importance Assisted ventilation during delayed cord clamping (DCC) may improve the physiologic transition of extremely preterm infants immediately after birth. Objective To determine whether assisted ventilation during 120 seconds of DCC was associated with reduced higher-level resuscitative interventions (intubation, chest compressions, or epinephrine administration) compared with DCC for 30 to 60 seconds followed by resuscitation. Design, Setting, and Participants This was a secondary analysis of the VentFirst randomized clinical trial that was conducted from September 2, 2016, through February 21, 2023, at 12 centers in the US and Canada. Infants born at 23 weeks 0 days’ to 28 weeks 6 days’ gestational age (GA) were included. Intervention Infants randomized to the intervention received either positive-pressure ventilation or continuous positive airway pressure from 30 to 120 seconds after birth, followed by umbilical cord clamping. Those randomized to control received 30 to 60 seconds of DCC followed by assisted ventilation. Main Outcomes and Measures The main outcome was the odds of higher-level resuscitative interventions in the delivery room (DR). Intention-to-treat analyses within 2 a priori cohorts (infants breathing well and not breathing well 30 seconds after birth) used the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel method to estimate the odds ratios (ORs) of intervention vs control. Results All 570 infants enrolled in the trial were included. Infants had a median (IQR) GA of 26.6 (25.2-27.9) weeks and 273 (47.9%) were female. A total of 271 infants (47.5%) were assessed as not breathing well 30 seconds after birth (150 intervention and 121 control), and 299 (52.5%) were assessed as breathing well 30 seconds after birth (128 intervention and 171 control). In the not-breathing-well cohort, 146 infants (53.9%) were intubated in the DR, 4 received chest compressions (2 intervention and 2 control), and 1 received epinephrine (control). Intubation was less frequent in the intervention group (71 infants [47.3%] vs 75 infants [62.0%]; OR, 0.52; 95% CI, 0.30-0.89). When adjusted by GA strata at randomization, infants in the 26 to 28 weeks’ GA stratum who were in the intervention group were less likely to be intubated in the DR (18 of 79 infants [22.8%] vs 29 of 60 infants [48.3%]; OR, 0.32; 95% CI, 0.15-0.65). However, there was no difference in intubation rates for infants in the 23 to 25 weeks’ GA stratum (53 of 71 infants [74.7%] vs 46 of 61 infants [75.4%]; OR, 0.96; 95% CI, 0.44-2.12). Among infants breathing well at 30 seconds, 74 (24.7%) were intubated in the DR, and none received compressions or epinephrine. Intubation rates were similar between intervention and control in the breathing-well cohort. Conclusions and Relevance While the VentFirst trial did not find a difference in death or intraventricular hemorrhage, this secondary analysis found that assisted ventilation during DCC was associated with less intubation in the DR, primarily among infants born at 26 to 28 weeks’ gestation who were not breathing well 30 seconds after birth. Additional studies are needed before implementing assisted ventilation during DCC in clinical practice. Trial Registration ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02742454

ImportanceProviding assisted ventilation during delayed umbilical cord clamping may improve outcomes for extremely preterm infants.ObjectiveTo determine whether assisted ventilation in extremely preterm infants (23 0/7 to 28 6/7 weeks’ gestational age [GA]) followed by cord clamping reduces intraventricular hemorrhage (IVH) or early death.Design, Setting, and ParticipantsThis phase 3, 1:1, parallel-stratified randomized clinical trial conducted at 12 perinatal centers across the US and Canada from September 2, 2016, through February 21, 2023, assessed IVH and early death outcomes of extremely preterm infants randomized to receive 120 seconds of assisted ventilation followed by cord clamping vs delayed cord clamping for 30 to 60 seconds with ventilatory assistance afterward. Two analysis cohorts, not breathing well and breathing well, were specified a priori based on assessment of breathing 30 seconds after birth.InterventionAfter birth, all infants received stimulation and suctioning if needed. From 30 to 120 seconds, infants randomized to the intervention received continuous positive airway pressure if breathing well or positive-pressure ventilation if not, with cord clamping at 120 seconds. Control infants received 30 to 60 seconds of delayed cord clamping followed by standard resuscitation.Main Outcomes and MeasuresThe primary outcome was any grade IVH on head ultrasonography or death before day 7. Interpretation by site radiologists was confirmed by independent radiologists, all masked to study group. To estimate the association between study group and outcome, data were analyzed using the stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test for relative risk (RR), with associations summarized by point estimates and 95% CIs.ResultsOf 1110 women who consented to participate, 548 were randomized and delivered infants at GA less than 29 weeks. A total of 570 eligible infants were enrolled (median [IQR] GA, 26.6 [24.9-27.7] weeks; 297 male [52.1%]). Intraventricular hemorrhage or death occurred in 34.9% (97 of 278) of infants in the intervention group and 32.5% (95 of 292) in the control group (adjusted RR, 1.02; 95% CI, 0.81-1.27). In the prespecified not-breathing-well cohort (47.5% [271 of 570]; median [IQR] GA, 26.0 [24.7-27.4] weeks; 152 male [56.1%]), IVH or death occurred in 38.7% (58 of 150) of infants in the intervention group and 43.0% (52 of 121) in the control group (RR, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.68-1.21). There was no evidence of differences in death, severe brain injury, or major morbidities between the intervention and control groups in either breathing cohort.Conclusions and RelevanceThis study did not show that providing assisted ventilation before cord clamping in extremely preterm infants reduces IVH or early death. Additional study around the feasibility, safety, and efficacy of assisted ventilation before cord clamping may provide additional insight.Trial RegistrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02742454

Objectives: Our preliminary data and observational studies suggested an increasing “off label” use of oral midodrine as a vasopressor sparing agent in various groups of critically ill patients, including those with sepsis. We designed this clinical trial to evaluate the feasibility of use of midodrine hydrochloride in early sepsis to reduce the duration for IV vasopressors and decrease ICU and hospital length of stay. Design: Pilot, two-center, placebo-controlled, double blinded randomized clinical trial. Setting: Medical ICUs at Mayo Clinic Rochester and Cleveland Clinic Abu Dhabi were the study sites. Patients and Methods: Adult patients (≥ 18 yr old) were included within 24 hours of meeting the Sepsis-3 definition if the mean arterial pressure remained less than 70 mm Hg despite receiving timely antibiotics and initial IV fluid bolus of 30 cc/kg. Intervention: Three doses of 10 mg midodrine versus placebo were administered. Measurements and Main Results: Total 32 patients were randomized into midodrine (n = 17) and placebo groups (n = 15). There were no major differences in baseline variables between the groups except for higher baseline creatinine in the midodrine group (2.0 ± 0.9 mg/dL) versus placebo group (1.4 ± 0.6 mg /dL), p = 0.03. The median duration of IV vasopressor requirement was 14.5 ± 8.1 hours in midodrine group versus 18.8 ± 7.1 hours in the placebo group, p value equals to 0.19. Patients in the midodrine group needed 729 ± 963 norepinephrine equivalent compared with 983 ± 1,569 norepinephrine equivalent in the placebo group, p value equals to 0.59. ICU length of stay was 2.29 days (interquartile range, 1.65–3.9 d) in the midodrine group, compared with 2.45 days (interquartile range, 1.6–3.2 d) in the placebo group, p value equals to 0.36. No serious adverse events were observed in either group. Conclusions: Phase II clinical trial powered for clinical outcomes (duration of vasopressor use, need for central venous catheter, and ICU and hospital length of stay) is justified.