Evidence Hub

Repetitive versus standard tactile stimulation of preterm infants at birth - A randomized controlled trial

J. Dekker, S. Hooper, T. Martherus, S. Cramer, N. van Geloven, A. T. Te Pas

Resuscitation, 2018

53 citations

Abstract

AIM

To evaluate the direct effect of repetitive tactile stimulation on breathing effort of preterm infants at birth.

METHODS

This randomized controlled trial compared the effect of repetitive stimulation on respiratory effort during the first 4 min after birth with standard stimulation based on clinical indication in preterm infants with a gestational age of 27-32 weeks. All details of the stimulation performed were noted. The main study parameter measured was respiratory minute volume, other study parameters assessed measures of respiratory effort; tidal volumes, rate of rise to maximum tidal volumes, percentage of recruitment breaths, and oxygenation of the infant.

RESULTS

There was no significant difference in respiratory minute volume in the repetitive stimulation group when compared to the standard group. Oxygen saturation was significantly higher (87.6 ± 3.3% vs 81.7 ± 8.7%, p = .01) while the amount of FiO2 given during transport to the NICU was lower (28.2 (22.8-35.0)% vs 33.6 (29.4-44.1)%, p = .04). There was no significant difference in administration of positive pressure ventilation (52% vs 78%, p = .13), or the duration of ventilation (median (IQR) time 8 (0-118)s vs 35 (13-131)s, p = .23). Caregivers decided less often to administer caffeine in the delivery room to stimulate breathing in the repetitive stimulation group (10% vs 39%, p = .036).

CONCLUSION

Although the increase in respiratory effort during repetitive stimulation did not reach significance,…

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.

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