4.2 Article

International, multicentre, observational study of fluid bolus therapy in neonates

Journal

JOURNAL OF PAEDIATRICS AND CHILD HEALTH
Volume 55, Issue 6, Pages 632-639

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/jpc.14260

Keywords

blood pressure; fluid; infant; newborn; therapy

Categories

Funding

  1. Australian Government Research Training Program Scholarship
  2. Royal Australasian College of Physicians Foundation
  3. Women's and Children's Hospital Foundation
  4. National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Oxford Biomedical Research Centre (BRC)

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Aim To assess the prevalence, types and indications for fluid bolus therapy in neonates with haemodynamic compromise. Methods This was a pragmatic, international, multicentre observational study in neonatal units across Australasia, Europe and North America with a predefined study period of 10-15 study days per participating neonatal unit between December 2015 and March 2017. Infants <= 28 days of age who received a fluid bolus for the management of haemodynamic compromise (>= 10 mL/kg given at <= 6 h) were included. Results A total of 163 neonates received a bolus over 8479 eligible patient days in 41 neonatal units. Prevalence of fluid bolus therapy varied between centres from 0 to 28.6% of admitted neonates per day, with a pooled prevalence rate of 1.5% (95% confidence interval 1.1-1.9%). The most common fluid used was 0.9% sodium chloride (129/163; 79%), and the volume of fluid administered was most commonly 10 mL/kg (115/163; 71%) over a median of 30 min (interquartile range 20-60). The most frequent indications were hypotension (n = 56; 34%), poor perfusion (n = 20; 12%) and metabolic acidosis (n = 20; 12%). Minimal or no clinical improvement was reported by clinicians in 66 of 163 cases (40%). Conclusions Wide international variations in types, indications and effects of fluid bolus administration in haemodynamically compromised neonates suggest uncertainty in the risk-benefit profile. This is likely to reflect the lack of robust evidence to support the efficacy of different fluid types, doses and appropriate indications. Together, these highlight a need for further clinically relevant studies.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available