The modern NICU is one that is full of patients on CPAP these days. As I have mentioned before, the opportunity to intubate is therefore becoming more and more rare is non-invasive pressure support becomes the mainstay of therapy. Even for those with established skills in placing an endotracheal tube, the number of times one gets to do this per year is certainly becoming fewer and fewer. Coming to the rescue is the promise of easier intubations by being able to visualize an airway on a screen using a video laryngoscope. The advantage to the user is that anyone who is watching can give you some great tips and armed with this knowledge you may be better able to determine how to adjust your approach.
For those of you who have followed the blog for some time, you will recall this is not the first time video laryngoscopy has come up. I have spoken about this before in Can Video Laryngoscopy Improve Trainee Success in Intubation. In that piece, the case was made that training residents how to intubate using a video laryngoscope (VL) improves their success rate. An additional question that one might ask though has to do with the quality of the intubation. What if you can place a tube using a video laryngoscope but the patient suffers in some way from having that piece of equipment in the mouth? Lucky for us some researchers from the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia have completed a study that can help answer this additional question.
Video Laryngoscopy may work but does it cause more harm than good?
Using a video laryngoscope requires purchasing one first and they aren’t necessarily cheap. If they were to provide a better patient experience though the added cost might well be worth it. Pouppirt NR et al published Association Between Video Laryngoscopy and Adverse Tracheal Intubation-Associated Events in the Neonatal Care Unit. This study was a retrospective comparison of two groups; one having an intubation performed with a VL (n=161 or 20% of the group) and the other with a standard laryngoscope (644 or 80% of the group). The study relied on the use of the National Emergency Airway Registry for Neonates (NEAR4NEOs), which records all intubations from a number of centres using an online database and allows for analysis of many different aspects of intubations in neonates. In this case the data utilized though was from their centre only to minimize variation in premedication and practitioner experience.
Tracheal intubation adverse events (TIAEs) were subdivided into severe (cardiac arrest, esophageal intubation with delayed recognition, emesis with witnessed aspiration, hypotension requiring intervention (fluid and/or vasopressors), laryngospasm, malignant hyperthermia, pneumothorax/pneumomediastinum, or direct airway injury) vs non-severe (mainstem bronchial intubation, esophageal intubation with immediate recognition, emesis without aspiration, hypertension requiring therapy, epistaxis, lip trauma, gum or oral trauma, dysrhythmia, and pain and/or agitation requiring additional medication and causing a delay in intubation.
Looking at the patient characteristics and outcomes, some interesting findings emerge.
Patients who had the use of the VL were older and weighed more. They were more likely to have the VL used for airway obstruction than respiratory failure and importantly were also more likely to receive sedation/analgesia and paralysis. These researchers have also recently shown that the use of paralysis is associated with less TIAEs so one needs to bear this in mind when looking at the rates of TIAEs. There were a statistically significant difference in TIAEs of any type of 6% in the VL group to 19% in the traditional laryngoscopy arm but severe TIAEs showed not difference.
Given that several of the baseline characteristics might play a role in explaining why VL seemed superior in terms of minimizing risk of TIAEs by two thirds, the authors performed a multivariable analysis in which they took all factors that were different into account and then looked to see if there was still an effect of the VL despite these seemingly important differences. Interestingly, us of VL showed an Odds ratio of 0.43 (0.21,0.87 95% CI) in spite of these differences.
What does it mean?
Video laryngoscopy appears to make a difference to reducing the risk on TIAEs as an independent factor. The most common TIAE was esophageal intubation at 10% and reducing that is a good thing as it leads to fewer intubation attempts. This was also sen as the first attempt success was 63% in the VL group vs 44% in the other.
Now we need to acknowledge that this was not a randomized controlled trial so it could indeed be that there are other factors that the authors have not identified that led to improvements in TIAEs as well. What makes this study so robust though is the rigour with which the centre documents all of their intubations using such a detailed registry. By using one centre much of the variability in practice between units is eliminated so perhaps these results can be trusted. Would your centre achieve these same results? Maybe not but it would certainly be interesting to test drive one of these for a period of time see how it performs.
I thought I would start off my series of posts with one of the most basic reasons we do Kangaroo Care.
Thermoregulation is the process of maintaining an infant’s temperature within normal range. Thermoregulation is extremely important for the newborn (term or preterm). An infant’s body surface area is 3X greater than an adult’s, causing them to potentially lose heat rapidly, up to 4X faster. When cold stressed, infants use energy and oxygen to generate warmth. Oxygen consumption can increase by as much as 10%. Thermoregulation of the infants allows them to conserve energy and build up *reserves”.
What Happens When An infant Is Placed Skin to Skin?
When the term infant is placed skin to skin at birth, the mother’s breasts immediately start to warm and conduct heat to the infant, helping to maintain normal blood sugar levels due to the infant not having to use their own brown fat to stay warm (Bergstrom et al.,2007;Bystrova et al.,2007;Ludington-Hoe et al.,2000,2006) (Chantry,2005;Christensson et al.,1992).
Kangaroo Care maintains a Neutral Thermal Environment (defined as the ideal setting in which an infant can maintain a normal body temperature while producing only the minimum amount of heat generated from basal life-sustaining metabolic processes).
In our unit, any infant that needs an incubator to maintain their temperature can only come out to be held by Kangaroo Care instead of being bundle held. To help maintain thermoregulation we make sure the infant and parent are in a draft free area, and use 2-4 layers of blankets over the infant (you can always remove a layer if needed). Infants weighing less than 1000gms should wear some type of head cap and monitor them using the incubator’s temperature probe. Remember too, we don’t want any bras or clothing between the infant and the mother, fabric will interfere with the conductance of heat from mother to infant (Ludington-Hoe et al.,2000).
One of the interesting things about KC and thermoregulation is if a mother holds twins in KC each breast works independently to warm each infant (Ludington-Hoe, et al.,2006). Triplets? Not sure, but our mothers hold their “trips” together all the time and we have had no issues.
Now, how about the father? Does he thermoregulate like the mother? With mothers you have what is called Thermal Synchrony (maternal breast temperatures changing in response to the infant’s temperature) (Ludington-Hoe, et al.,1990;1994,2000) where the fathers chests will warm up when the infant is placed in KC but will not cool down (Maastrup & Greisen, 2010). We don’t have any issues with our fathers overheating, just lots of hair to be picked off the infant after!
It is hard to believe but it has been almost 3 years since I wrote a piece entitled A 200 year old invention that remains king of all tech in newborn resuscitation. In the post I shared a recent story of a situation in which the EKG leads told a different story that what our ears and fingers would want us to believe. The concept of the piece was that in the setting of pulseless electrical activity (where there is electrical conductance in the myocardium but lack of contraction leaves no blood flow to the body) one could pick up a signal from the EKG leads when there is in fact no pulse or perfusion to vital organs. This single experience led me to postulate that this situation may be more common than we think and the application of EKG leads routinely could lead to errors in decision making during resuscitation of the newborn. It is easy to see how that could occur when you think about the racing pulses of our own in such situations and once chest compressions start one might watch the monitor and forget when they see a heart rate of 70 BPM to check for a corresponding pulse or listen with the stethoscope. I could see for example someone stopping chest compressions and continuing to provide BVM ventilation despite no palpable pulse when they see the QRS complex clearly on the monitor. I didn’t really have much evidence to support this concern but perhaps there is a little more to present now.
A Crafty Animal Study Provides The Evidence
I haven’t presented many animal studies but this one is fairly simple and serves to illustrate the concern in a research model. For those of you who haven’t done animal research, my apologies in advance as you read what happened to this group of piglets. Although it may sound awful, the study has demonstrated that the concern I and others have has is real.
For this study 54 newborn piglets (equivalent to 36-38 weeks GA in humans) were anesthetized and had a flow sensor surgically placed around the carotid artery. ECG leads were placed as well and then after achieving stabilization, hypoxia was induced with an FiO2 of 0.1 and then asphyxia by disconnecting the ventilator and clamping the ETT. By having a flow probe around the carotid artery the researchers were able to determine the point of no cardiac output and simultaneously monitor for electrical activity via the EKG leads. Auscultation for heart sounds was performed as well.
The results essentially confirm why I have been concerned with an over reliance on EKG leads.
Of the 57 piglets, 14 had asystole and no carotid flow but in 23 there was still a heart rate present on the EKG with no detectable carotid flow. This yields a sensitivity of only 37%. Moreover, the overall accuracy of the ECG was only 56%.
Meanwhile the stethoscope which I have referred to previously as the “king” in these situations had 100% sensitivity so remains deserving of that title.
What do we do with such information?
I think the results give us reason to pause and remember that faster isn’t always better. Previous research has shown that signal acquisition with EKG leads is faster than with oximetry. While a low heart rate detected quickly is helpful to know what the state of the infant is and begin the NRP pathway, we simply can’t rely on the EKG to tell us the whole story. We work in interdisciplinary teams and need to support one another in resuscitations and provide the team with the necessary information to perform well. The next time you are in such a situation remember that the EKG is only one part of the story and that auscultation for heart sounds and palpation of the umbilical cord for pulsation are necessary steps to demonstrate conclusively that you don’t just have a rhythm but a perfusing one.
I would like to thank the Edmonton group for continuing to put out such important work in the field of resuscitation!
Hi, my name is Diane Schultz and Michael has asked me to write a series of posts on his blog about Kangaroo Care (KC). Seeing as I am one of the Champions (they call you that, but sometimes the word begins with a B) for KC in my unit, I was thrilled. I thought I would begin with an introduction as to why I want to write about this.
I have been a Neonatal Nurse for 29 years working in the NICU at St. Boniface Hospital in Winnipeg. I felt that I had always given good care to the families but did not really make connections with them.
I was fortunate enough to meet Dr. Susie Ludington about 10 years ago at an Academy of Neonatal Nursing conference. She was a general session presenter and was speaking about Kangaroo Care. The first thing she said was “My goal is Kangaroo Care 24/7”. All I could think of was WTF!? I would have to listen to this Nutbar for an hour? Our unit had been doing KC for years but only occasionally and usually the parent would ask for it, we certainly did not promote it or do it with our more fragile infants.
After listening to Dr. Ludington present, my world changed. What she said hit a cord; she presented benefit after benefit with rationale and evidence that made complete sense to me. I felt guilty I had not been doing this at work and guilty that I had not held my own daughters this way. I am now lucky to be able to call Dr. Ludington a friend, and know she has changed my life.
Now, there is a lot of evidence out there touting the benefits of KC, but the real way to understand and believe in it is to do it. KC creates its own evidence. Every time I bring out a medically fragile infant to be held in KC, I know that this is the right place for that infant to be: with their parent being held. You can see the relaxation on all of their faces (decreasing cortisol), the infant is able to go into a deep sleep (promotes brain maturation), and the family is able to connect in the best way possible. I feel KC is as important as anything else we do at the bedside and is an extremely necessary therapy.
Promoting KC in my unit has benefited me at so many levels; I believe it has actually saved my career and given me a focus that I didn’t have before. You can’t help but make connections with your families, and these families are able to make connections with their little ones. KC is also a very important part of Family Integrated Care, as this is something that the family can contribute to their child’s care.
I also couldn’t be more proud of my unit; the staff I have the pleasure to work with are some of the best health care professionals around. They make every effort to bring our fragile infants out for KC and it has become part of our culture in our NICU. KC happens in our unit with almost all of our infants, the only exceptions being actively cooling babies and infants with chest tubes. We have also created a Standard Work Protocol so all medically fragile infants come out the safest way possible without creating extra stress on the infant or family.
In my series of posts I will present the many benefits of KC for infants and their families and share some of my experiences. I hope you will be able to take something away from this, begin to try KC in your own unit, and create your own evidence.
We hope to provide education through links to publications and videos demonstrating the benefits of adopting POCUS! Less ionizing radiation and enhanced diagnostic accuracy are just two of the benefits of using such techniques. Videos demonstrating and discussing this technique can be found on the Point of Care Neonatal Ultrasound Playlist on my Youtube channel
Use of point of care ultrasound has expanded over the last decades particularly in intensive care to the point that it is now readily available for use by the clinical care practitioners in this setting (1). Today clinicians are using ultrasound at the bedside to assist in the evaluation of physiological abnormalities in a number of body systems. Ultrasound has been used to image body organs for over 50 years (2). It is currently the most widely used imaging modality in medicine. Advantages are that ultrasound is portable, free of radiation risk and relatively inexpensive compared to other diagnostic modalities like magnetic resonance and computed tomography (3). The main limitation when considering this for use by NICU clinicians is that it requires advanced training. In addition, when compared to traditional x-ray, ultrasound has limited penetration to air and bones and therefore structures deeper to them cannot be well assessed (4).
There are three general indications for ultrasound in the neonatal setting:
1) Anatomic assessment of static organs such as the brain, lungs, liver, kidney and spleen to evaluate for anomalies, hemorrhage, space occupying lesions and abnormal fluid collections.
2) Dynamic assessment of moving organs, such as the heart, lungs, intestine, and the vascular system to evaluate blood flow and physiologic processes.
3) Locating vessels for cannulation and determining the position of catheter tips.
Anatomic ultrasound assessment of static organs should be provided by a trained radiologist. Dynamic ultrasound assessment can be performed by a trained neonatal clinician who understands the clinical details of his or her patients and is familiar with the underlying pathophysiologic mechanisms (5). Table 1 shows different applications performed by a trained clinician.
Point of care lung ultrasound:
In the last 10 years, research studies have shown that lung ultrasound (LUS) is an accurate, non-invasive method for predicting ventilatory failure and offers advantages over traditional chest radiography (6). LUS can accurately and reliably diagnose transient tachypnea of the newborn (TTN) and has a great value in differentiating TTN from respiratory distress syndrome (RDS) (7). Additionally, many of the other common pulmonary and pleural diseases in neonates display specific findings on LUS which can be useful in the differential diagnosis (8).
We developed a screening model of bedside lung ultrasound assessment for infants requiring respiratory support5. Like any other diagnostic technique it should be only used in integration with the clinical assessment and interpreted according to the clinical presentation of the individual patient while considering particular limitations of this modality.
Point of care intestinal ultrasound:
Necrotising enterocolitis is a serious disorder in infants and commonly associated with complications like short bowel syndrome and total parenteral nutrition related issues. The reported mortality is up to 40%, so early diagnosis and management are essential (9). The radiographic diagnosis by XR after clinical suspicion is still the standard in most centers. The main issue with radiograph is being limited to 3 main findings, pneumatosis intestinalis (PI), portal vein gases (PVG), and perforation, and radiograph diagnosis of PI and PVG is sometimes a challenge with low sensitivity and wide range of inter-observer variability. There has been increasing evidence that with real-time ultrasound, PI and PVG can be better detected than with x-ray (10). Ultrasound is able to assess the bowel wall directly and detect bowel wall thickening or thinning, reduced peristalsis or abnormal bowel wall perfusion by color Doppler. Peritoneal fluid, both intraluminal and extra luminal is also visible (11,12). This can be performed in any suspected case with compromised intestinal performance like intestinal obstruction or ischemia and not only in cases with suspected NEC.
Table 1: different applications performed by either professional sonographer (radiologist or cardiologist) or a trained clinician
emergency assessment of suspected hemorrhage
Doppler assessment of cerebral arteries in cases hemodynamic instability e.g. PDA
Intestinal ultrasound Urgent evaluation of suspected necrotizing entercolitis, intestinal ischemia
Lung ultrasound New emerging modality for assessment of common neonatal lung diseases, e.g. RDS, TTN, meconium, pneumothorax, pleural effusions.
Focused heart ultrasound Assessment of specific neonatal hemodynamics issues
Vascular assessment Blood flow by Doppler for assessment of resistance or shunting of blood through arteriovenous malformation or PDA
Interventional POCUS Central line placement, lumber puncture, bladder tapping for urine sample. Peritoneal and pericardial tap of significant effusions
1. Evans N, Gournay V, Cabanas F, et al. Point-of-care ultrasound in the neonatal intensive care unit: international perspectives. Semin Fetal Neonatal Med. 2011;16(1):61-68. doi:10.1016/j.siny.2010.06.005.
2. Pereda M a., Chavez M a., Hooper-Miele CC, et al. Lung ultrasound for the diagnosis of Pneumonia in Children: A Meta-analysis. Pediatrics. 2015;135(4):714-722. doi:10.1542/peds.2014-2833.
3. Escourrou G, De Luca D. Lung ultrasound decreased radiation exposure in preterm infants in a neonatal intensive care unit. Acta Paediatr. 2016:n/a-n/a. doi:10.1111/apa.13369.
4. Volpicelli G, Elbarbary M, Blaivas M, et al. International evidence-based recommendations for point-of-care lung ultrasound. Intensive Care Med. 2012;38(4):577-591. doi:10.1007/s00134-012-2513-4.
5. Elsayed Y, Abdelmawla M, Narvey M. A model of integrated lung and focused heart ultrasound as a new screening examination in infants at risk of respiratory or hemodynamic compromise. 2017;6(1):1-14. doi:10.7363/060131.
6. Xirouchaki N, Magkanas E, Vaporidi K, et al. Lung ultrasound in critically ill patients: comparison with bedside chest radiography. Intensive Care Med. 2011;37(9):1488-1493. doi:10.1007/s00134-011-2317-y.
7. Liu J, Cao H-Y, Wang X-L, Xiao L-J. The significance and the necessity of routinely performing lung ultrasound in the neonatal intensive care units. J Matern Neonatal Med. 2016;7058(March):1-6. doi:10.3109/14767058.2016.1152577.
8. Copetti R, Cattarossi L. Lung Ultrasound in Newborns, Infants, and Children. 2011:241-245. doi:10.1007/978-3-642-21247-5.
9. Dilli D, Suna Oğuz S, Erol R, Ozkan-Ulu H, Dumanlı H, Dilmen U. Does abdominal sonography provide additional information over abdominal plain radiography for diagnosis of necrotizing enterocolitis in neonates? Pediatr Surg Int. 2011;27(3):321-327. doi:10.1007/s00383-010-2737-8.
10. Bohnhorst B. Usefulness of abdominal ultrasound in diagnosing necrotising enterocolitis. Arch Dis Child Fetal Neonatal Ed. 2013;98:F445-50. doi:10.1136/archdischild-2012-302848.
11. Gale HI, Gee MS, Westra SJ, Nimkin K. Abdominal ultrasonography of the pediatric gastrointestinal tract. World J Radiol. 2016;8(7):656. doi:10.4329/wjr.v8.i7.656.
12. Kim H-Y, Kim I-O, Kim WS, Kang GH. Bowel sonography in sepsis with pathological correlation: an experimental study. Pediatr Radiol. 2011;41(2):237-243. doi:10.1007/s00247-010-1806-4.