Assessment of infant position and timing of stylet removal to improve lumbar puncture success in neonates (NeoCLEAR): an open-label, 2 × 2 factorial, randomised, controlled trial
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Background Newborn infants are the highest-risk age group for bacterial meningitis. Lumbar punctures are therefore frequently performed in neonates, but success rates are low (50–60%). In Neonatal Champagne Lumbar punctures Every time–A Randomised Controlled Trial (NeoCLEAR), we sought to optimise infant lumbar puncture by evaluating two modifications to traditional technique: sitting position versus lying down and early stylet removal (stylet removal after transecting the subcutaneous tissue) versus late stylet removal. Methods NeoCLEAR was an open-label, 2 × 2 factorial, randomised, controlled trial, conducted in 21 UK neonatal and maternity units. Infants requiring lumbar puncture at 27 +0 to 44 +0 weeks corrected gestational age and weighing 1000 g or more were randomly assigned (1:1:1:1) to sitting position and early stylet removal, sitting position and late stylet removal, lying position and early stylet removal, or lying position and late stylet removal using a 24/7, web-based, secure, central randomisation system. Block randomisation was stratified within site by corrected gestational age (27 +0 to 31 +6 weeks, 32 +0 to 36 +6 weeks, 37 +0 to 40 +6 weeks, or 41 +0 to 44 +0 weeks), using variable block sizes of four and eight with equal frequency. Laboratory staff were masked to allocation. The primary outcome was successful first lumbar puncture, defined as obtaining a cerebrospinal fluid sample with a red blood cell count of less than 10 000 cells per μL. The primary and secondary (including safety) outcomes were analysed by the groups to which infants were assigned regardless of deviation from the protocol or allocation received, but with exclusion of infants who were withdrawn before data collection or who did not undergo lumbar puncture (modified intention-to-treat analysis). This study is registered with ISRCTN, ISRCTN14040914. Findings Between Aug 3, 2018, and Aug 31, 2020, 1082 infants were randomly assigned to sitting (n=546) or lying (n=536), and early (n=549) or late (n=533) stylet removal. 1076 infants were followed-up until discharge and included in the modified intention-to-treat analysis. 961 (89%) infants were term, and 936 (87%) were younger than 3 days. Successful first lumbar puncture was more frequently observed in sitting than in lying position (346 [63·7%] of 543 vs 307 [57·6%] of 533; adjusted risk ratio 1·10 [95% CI 1·01 to 1·21], p=0·029; number needed to treat=16). Timing of stylet removal had no discernible effect on the primary outcome (338 [62·0%] of 545 infants in the early stylet removal group and 315 [59·3%] of 531 in the late stylet removal group had a successful first lumbar puncture; adjusted risk ratio 1·04 [95% CI 0·94–1·15], p=0·45). Sitting was associated with fewer desaturations than was lying (median lowest oxygen saturations during first lumbar puncture 93% [IQR 89–96] vs 90% [85–94]; median difference 3·0% [2·1–3·9], p<0·0001). One infant from the sitting plus late stylet removal group developed a scrotal haematoma 2 days after lumbar puncture, which was deemed to be possibly related to lumbar puncture. Interpretation NeoCLEAR is the largest trial investigating paediatric lumbar puncture so far. Success rates were improved when sitting rather than lying. Sitting lumbar puncture is safe, cost neutral, and well tolerated. We predominantly recruited term neonates younger than 3 days; other populations warrant further study. Neonatal lumbar puncture is commonly performed worldwide; these results therefore strongly support the widespread adoption of sitting technique for neonatal lumbar puncture. Funding UK National Institute for Health and Care Research.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,002 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».