Umbilical Cord Milking in Nonvigorous Infants: A Cluster-Randomized Crossover Trial
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
ABSTRACT Approximately 6 million infants each year require resuscitation at birth. Requiring this intervention is associated with higher risk of hypoxic-ischemic encephalopathy (HIE), cerebral palsy, attention-deficit or hyperactive disorder, autism, neonatal stroke, and death. In infants needing resuscitation, optimal cord management is essential to enhance placental transfusion. Delayed cord clamping (DCC) is used to enable placental transfusion in vigorous infants, but in nonvigorous infants—those who are limp, pale, or have minimal or no breathing—early cord clamping (ECC) is recommended. Another intervention for nonvigorous infants requiring resuscitation is umbilical cord milking (UCM). UCM can improve heart rate, blood pressure, urine output, cerebral oxygenation, and hemoglobin levels, and prevent anemia. In addition, it can achieve placental transfusion without delaying resuscitation as with DCC and can be completed as quickly as ECC. No harm has been observed in studies involving UCM. Despite these benefits, studies are lacking on optimal cord management strategies in nonvigorous infants requiring resuscitation. The aim of this study was to examine whether UCM reduces admission to the neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) versus ECC in nonvigorous newborns. This was a pragmatic, cluster-randomized, crossover trial conducted at 10 hospitals in the United States, Canada, and Poland. Included were viable infants delivered between January 2019 and May 2021 who were between 35 and 42 weeks of gestation and nonvigorous at birth. Nonvigorous was defined as poor tone, pallor, or lack of breathing in the first 15 seconds after birth. Excluded were infants with major congenital or chromosomal anomalies, cardiac defects except small ventricular septal defects, complete placental abruption or cutting through the placenta at delivery, monochorionic multiples, cord anomalies, and the presence of nonreducible nuchal cord. Hospitals were randomized 1:1 to UCM or ECC in period 1 from January 2019 to January 2020, then crossed over to the other intervention during period 2 from February 2020 to May 2021. The primary outcome was NICU admission related to the intervention in the first 24 hours of life. The safety outcome was HIE. A total of 1730 infants were included in the analysis with 872 in the UCM group and 858 in the ECC group. The difference in the frequency of NICU admission was not statistically significant, with 23% in the UCM group and 28% in the ECC group (odds ratio [OR], 0.69; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.41–1.14). In comparison to the ECC group, UCM was associated with lower odds of abnormal 1-minute Apgar scores (Apgar ≤3, 30% vs 34%; crude OR, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.56–0.92), receipt of cardiorespiratory support in the delivery room (61% vs 71%; modeled OR, 0.57; 95% CI, 0.33–0.99), and therapeutic hypothermia (3% vs 4%; crude OR, 0.58; 95% CI, 0.33–0.99). In addition, there was no significant difference in any grade of HIE, although moderate-to-severe HIE was less common in the UCM group (1% vs 3%; crude OR, 0.48; 95% CI, 0.24–0.96). The UCM group also had increased hemoglobin (modeled mean difference, 0.68 g/dL; 95% CI, 0.31–1.05) and peak serum bilirubin (modeled mean difference, 1.4 mg/dL; 95% CI, 0.5–2.2). In nonvigorous newborns needing resuscitation, UCM was not associated with a reduction in NICU admissions compared with ECC. UCM was associated with a decrease in cardiorespiratory support in the delivery room, fewer cases of moderate-to-severe HIE, lower use of therapeutic hypothermia, and higher hemoglobin.
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 | 0,007 | 0,251 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,002 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,005 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,001 | 0,002 |
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; les deux têtes enseignantes s’accordent sur ce qui est montré ici.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».