Evidence Hub

Ventilation strategies and risk factors for intraoperative respiratory critical events and postoperative pulmonary complications in neonates and small infants: a secondary analysis of the NECTARINE cohort☆

A. Fuchs, Nicola Disma, Thomas Engelhardt, Vanessa Marchesini, Thomas Riedel, Krisztina Boda, Walid Habre, Thomas Riva et al.

British Journal of Anaesthesia, 2025

5,609 participants · 11 citations

Abstract

Background Optimal ventilation strategies and use of neuromuscular blocking agents (NMBAs) in neonates and small infants undergoing anaesthesia remain unclear. We examined the association of perioperative ventilation strategies and administration of NMBAs on respiratory adverse events in the NEonate-Children sTudy of Anaesthesia pRactice IN Europe (NECTARINE) cohort. Methods We performed a secondary analysis of NECTARINE, which included infants up to 60 weeks' postmenstrual age undergoing anaesthesia for surgical or diagnostic procedures. The primary endpoint was the association between ventilation mode and intraoperative respiratory adverse events. Secondary endpoints were use of NMBA, and 30-day postoperative pulmonary complications (PPCs). Results The dataset comprised 5609 patients undergoing 6542 procedures. Pressure-controlled ventilation was the primary ventilation modality, accounting for 52.4% (n=3428) of cases. The incidence of intraoperative respiratory critical events was 20.7% (95% confidence interval [CI] 19.7–21.7%), while PPCs were observed in 17% of cases (95% CI 16.0–18.1%). Preanaesthesia respiratory conditions and NMBA use after tracheal intubation were associated with higher incidence of PPCs. Of the children receiving NMBAs, reversal was reported in 29.8%. The absence of reversal was associated with a higher incidence of PPCs, with a relative risk of 1.50 (95% CI 1.17–1.93). Conversely, NMBA reversal was associated with a reduced relative risk of 0.43…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a secondary / pooled analysis, done in people. Its evidence level is 3 of 5 (Moderate · trial / cohort / secondary analysis). Trials without a large randomized design, cohorts and secondary analyses give moderate evidence. Reported size: 5,609 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