Evidence Hub

Multicentre, randomised controlled trial of physiological-based cord clamping versus immediate cord clamping in infants with a congenital diaphragmatic hernia (PinC): statistical analysis plan

Horn-Oudshoorn EJJ, Vermeulen MJ, Knol R, Bout-Rebel R, Te Pas AB, Hooper SB, Otter SCMC, Wijnen RMH et al.

Trials, 2024

140 participants · 3 citations

Abstract

Background: Infants born with congenital diaphragmatic hernia (CDH) are at high risk of respiratory insufficiency and pulmonary hypertension. Routine practice includes immediate clamping of the umbilical cord and endotracheal intubation. Experimental animal studies suggest that clamping the umbilical cord guided by physiological changes and after the lungs have been aerated, named physiological-based cord clamping (PBCC), could enhance the fetal-to-neonatal transition in CDH. We describe the statistical analysis plan for the clinical trial evaluating the effects of PBCC versus immediate cord clamping on pulmonary hypertension in infants with CDH (PinC trial).

Design: The PinC trial is a multicentre, randomised controlled trial in infants with isolated left-sided CDH, born ≥ 35.0 weeks of gestation. The primary outcome is the incidence of pulmonary hypertension in the first 24 h after birth. Maternal outcomes include estimated maternal blood loss. Neonatal secondary outcomes include mortality before discharge, extracorporeal membrane oxygenation therapy, and number of days of mechanical ventilation. Infants are 1:1 randomised to either PBCC or immediate cord clamping using variable random permutated block sizes (4-8), stratified by treatment centre and estimated severity of pulmonary hypoplasia (i.e. mild/moderate/severe). At least 140 infants are needed to detect a relative reduction in pulmonary hypertension by one third, with 80% power and 0.05 significance level. A…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a randomized trial, done in people. Its evidence level is 2 of 5 (High · randomized trial). Randomized trials of a reasonable size are the strongest single-study design. Reported size: 140 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free