Suctioning habits in the delivery room and the influence on postnatal adaptation – a video analysis

Dimitrios Konstantelos; Sascha Ifflaender; Jürgen Dinger; Mario Rüdiger

doi:10.1515/jpm-2014-0188

Article

Suctioning habits in the delivery room and the influence on postnatal adaptation – a video analysis

Dimitrios Konstantelos , Sascha Ifflaender , Jürgen Dinger and Mario Rüdiger

Published/Copyright: October 16, 2014

Published by

Become an author with De Gruyter Brill

Submit Manuscript Author Information Explore this Subject

From the journal Journal of Perinatal Medicine Volume 43 Issue 6

Abstract

Aims: To determine how often infants are suctioned during delivery and how it affects the neonate.

Methods: Single-center analysis of video-recorded delivery room management after c-section from January 2012 until April 2013. Time point, duration, and frequency of suctioning in term and preterm newborns were analyzed along with vital parameters (heart rate (HR) and saturation values).

Results: Three hundred forty-six videos were analyzed. Twenty-three percent of term and 66% of preterm newborns were suctioned. Newborns were suctioned up to 14 times; total duration spent for suctioning was between 2 and 154 s. Suctioning before face mask application occurred in 31% of the suctioned newborns requiring respiratory support. No severe bradycardia (<60 bpm) was noticed. Suctioning did not have an effect on HR and saturation in preterm infants but was associated with significantly higher HR in term infants requiring respiratory support. Term infants who did not require respiratory support showed significantly higher saturation values at 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10 min if they were not suctioned.

Conclusions: Suctioning of newborns in the delivery room does not adhere to recommendations of international guidelines. However, previously described side effects of suctioning could not be confirmed.

Keywords: Delivery room; newborn; suction; video recording

Corresponding author: Prof. Dr. Mario Rüdiger, Department of Neonatology and Pediatric Intensive Care, Medizinische Fakultät Carl Gustav Carus, TU Dresden, Fetscherstraße 74, Dresden 01307, Germany, Tel.: +49-351 458 3640, Fax: +49-351 458 5358, E-mail: Mario.ruediger@uniklinikum-dresden.de

Acknowledgments

The study was supported by Else Kröner-Fresenius-Stiftung. The sponsor had no involvement in the study design, in the collection, analysis and interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript; and in the decision to submit the manuscript for publication.

References

[1] Aguilar AM, Vain NE. The suctioning in the delivery room debate. Early Hum Dev. 2011;87(Suppl 1):S13–5.10.1016/j.earlhumdev.2011.01.003Search in Google Scholar

[2] Apgar V. A proposal for a new method of evaluation of the newborn infant. Curr Res Anesth Analg. 1953;32:260–7.10.1213/00000539-195301000-00041Search in Google Scholar

[3] Bergeson PS, Shaw JC. Are infants really obligatory nasal breathers? Clin Pediatr (Phila). 2001;40:567–9.10.1177/000992280104001006Search in Google Scholar

[4] Carbine DN, Finer NN, Knodel E, Rich W. Video recording as a means of evaluating neonatal resuscitation performance. Pediatrics. 2000;106:654–8.10.1542/peds.106.4.654Search in Google Scholar

[5] Frank DJ. Neonatal bradycardia following nasopharyngeal stimulation. J Pediatr. 1971;79:708.10.1016/S0022-3476(71)80335-9Search in Google Scholar

[6] Gungor S, Kurt E, Teksoz E, Goktolga U, Ceyhan T, Baser I. Oronasopharyngeal suction versus no suction in normal and term infants delivered by elective cesarean section: a prospective randomized controlled trial. Gynecol Obstet Invest. 2006;61:9–14.10.1159/000087604Search in Google Scholar

[7] Hasselmeyer EG, Hon EH, Cook CD. Cardio-respiratory changes associated with gavage feedings. Pediatr Res. 1970;4:472.10.1203/00006450-197009000-00150Search in Google Scholar

[8] International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation. 2005 International Consensus on Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation and Emergency Cardiovascular Care Science with Treatment Recommendations. Part 7: Neonatal resuscitation. Resuscitation. 2005;67:293–303.10.1016/j.resuscitation.2005.09.014Search in Google Scholar

[9] Kattwinkel J, Perlman JM, Aziz K, Colby C, Fairchild K, Gallagher J, et al. Part 15: neonatal resuscitation: 2010 American Heart Association Guidelines for Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation and Emergency Cardiovascular Care. Circulation. 2010;122:S909–19.10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.110.971119Search in Google Scholar

[10] Kelleher J, Bhat R, Salas AA, Addis D, Mills EC, Mallick H, et al. Oronasopharyngeal suction versus wiping of the mouth and nose at birth: a randomised equivalency trial. Lancet. 2013;382:326–30.10.1016/S0140-6736(13)60775-8Search in Google Scholar

[11] Konstantelos D, Gurth H, Bergert R, Ifflaender S, Rüdiger M. Positioning of term infants during delivery room routine handling – analysis of videos. BMC Pediatr. 2014;14:33.10.1186/1471-2431-14-33Search in Google Scholar

[12] Konstantelos D, Ifflaender S, Dinger J, Burkhardt W, Rüdiger M. Analyzing support of postnatal transition in term infants after c-section. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2014;14:225.10.1186/1471-2393-14-225Search in Google Scholar

[13] Leone T, Finer N. Resuscitation in the delivery room. In: Gleason CA, Devaskar S, editors. Avery’s diseases of the newborn. 9th ed. Philadelphia: Elsevier; 2012. p. 328–40.10.1016/B978-1-4377-0134-0.10028-9Search in Google Scholar

[14] Lipton EL, Steinschneider A, Richmond JB. Autonomic function in the neonate. VIII. Cardio-pulmonary observations. Pediatrics. 1964;33:212–5.10.1542/peds.33.2.212Search in Google Scholar

[15] Niermeyer S, Kattwinkel J, Van Reempts P, Nadkarni V, Phillips B, Zideman D, et al. International guidelines for neonatal resuscitation: an excerpt from the guidelines 2000 for cardiopulmonary resuscitation and emergency cardiovascular care: international consensus on science. Contributors and reviewers for the Neonatal Resuscitation Guidelines. Pediatrics. 2000;106:E29.10.1542/peds.106.3.e29Search in Google Scholar

[16] Polgar G, Kong GP. The nasal resistance of newborn infants. J Pediatr. 1965;67:557–67.10.1016/S0022-3476(65)80425-5Search in Google Scholar

[17] Richmond S, Wyllie J. European Resuscitation Council Guidelines for Resuscitation 2010 Section 7. Resuscitation of babies at birth. Resuscitation. 2010;81:1389–99.10.1016/j.resuscitation.2010.08.018Search in Google Scholar

[18] Schilleman K, Siew ML, Lopriore E, Morley CJ, Walther FJ, Te Pas AB. Auditing resuscitation of preterm infants at birth by recording video and physiological parameters. Resuscitation. 2012;83:1135–9.10.1016/j.resuscitation.2012.01.036Search in Google Scholar

[19] Vain NE, Szyld EG, Prudent LM, Wiswell TE, Aguilar AM, Vivas NI. Oropharyngeal and nasopharyngeal suctioning of meconium-stained neonates before delivery of their shoulders: multicentre, randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2004;364:597–602.10.1016/S0140-6736(04)16852-9Search in Google Scholar

[20] Velaphi S, Vidyasagar D. The pros and cons of suctioning at the perineum (intrapartum) and post-delivery with and without meconium. Semin Fetal Neonatal Med. 2008;13: 375–82.10.1016/j.siny.2008.04.001Search in Google Scholar PubMed

[21] Wiswell TE, Gannon CM, Jacob J, Goldsmith L, Szyld E, Weiss K, et al. Delivery room management of the apparently vigorous meconium-stained neonate: results of the multicenter, international collaborative trial. Pediatrics. 2000;105:1–7.10.1542/peds.105.1.1Search in Google Scholar PubMed

The authors stated that there are no conflicts of interest regarding the publication of this article.

Received: 2014-6-2

Accepted: 2014-9-15

Published Online: 2014-10-16

Published in Print: 2015-11-1

You are currently not able to access this content.

Articles in the same Issue

https://doi.org/10.1515/jpm-2014-0188

Keywords for this article

Delivery room; newborn; suction; video recording