Stop sucking the baby

Sometimes you see a paper published and think why was that study done?

I know everything has to be evidence based these days, forget about consensus, and wisdom of the elderly experienced practitioner or just even common sense it would seem.

I have been delivering babies for 10 years or so now and at the start I was taught only to do oronasopharyngeal suction on the perineum if there was meconium. Now I believe that is also been shown to be of little use.

I was a little surprised seeing this paper published in the Lancet from a US study. Also surprising, the paper has 13 authors!

Oronasopharyngeal suction versus wiping of the mouth and nose at birth: a randomised equivalency trial.

Kelleher J, Bhat R, Salas AA, Addis D, Mills EC, Mallick H, Tripathi A, Pruitt EP, Roane C, McNair T, Owen J, Ambalavanan N, Carlo WA. Lancet. 2013 Jul 27;382(9889):326-30. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(13)60775-8. Epub 2013 Jun 3.

BACKGROUND: Wiping of the mouth and nose at birth is an alternative method to oronasopharyngeal suction in delivery-room management of neonates, but whether these methods have equivalent effectiveness is unclear.

METHODS: For this randomised equivalency trial, neonates delivered at 35 weeks’ gestation or later at the University of Alabama at Birmingham Hospital, Birmingham, AL, USA, between October, 2010, and November, 2011, were eligible. Before birth, neonates were randomly assigned gentle wiping of the face, mouth (implemented by the paediatric or obstetric resident), and nose with a towel (wipe group) or suction with a bulb syringe of the mouth and nostrils (suction group). The primary outcome was the respiratory rate in the first 24 h after birth. We hypothesised that respiratory rates would differ by fewer than 4 breaths per min between groups. Analysis was by intention to treat. This study is registered with, number NCT01197807.

FINDINGS: 506 neonates born at a median of 39 weeks’ gestation (IQR 38-40) were randomised. Three parents withdrew consent and 15 non-vigorous neonates with meconium-stained amniotic fluid were excluded. Among the 488 treated neonates, the mean respiratory rates in the first 24 h were 51 (SD 8) breaths per min in the wipe group and 50 (6) breaths per min in the suction group (difference of means 1 breath per min, 95% CI -2 to 0, p<0·001).

INTERPRETATION: Wiping the nose and mouth has equivalent efficacy to routine use of oronasopharyngeal suction in neonates born at or beyond 35 weeks’ gestation.

My midwife friends tell me babies are delivered a little different in the USA than Australia. But I am glad that my lack of suction over the last 10 years has note caused any harm.

Now going back to sucking away the meconium

It does seem logical that if you have a flat baby which hasn’t made a respiratory effort and its mouth is full of pea soup (puts you off the idea of that for a winter dinner) then sucking it away seems like a good idea before providing some respiratory support.

However there have been studies done which discount this logic. And it is probably based on the preposition that the baby has already inhaled the meconium well before it got into your hands in its journey through the birth canal.

With reference to another Lancet article this time from Argentina

Oropharyngeal and nasopharyngeal suctioning of meconium-stained neonates before delivery of their shoulders: multicentre, randomised controlled trial.

Vain NE, Szyld EG, Prudent LM, Wiswell TE, Aguilar AM, Vivas NI. Lancet. 2004 Aug 14-20;364(9434):597-602.

BACKGROUND:  Meconium aspiration syndrome (MAS) is a life-threatening respiratory disorder in infants born through meconium-stained amniotic fluid (MSAF). Although anecdotal data concerning the efficacy of intrapartum oropharyngeal and nasopharyngeal suctioning of MSAF are conflicting, the procedure is widely used. We aimed to assess the effectiveness of intrapartum suctioning for the prevention of MAS.

METHODS: We designed a randomised controlled trial in 11 hospitals in Argentina and one in the USA. 2514 patients with MSAF of any consistency, gestational age at least 37 weeks, and cephalic presentation were randomly assigned to suctioning of the oropharynx and nasopharynx (including the hypopharynx) before delivery of the shoulders (n=1263), or no suctioning before delivery (n=1251). Postnatal delivery-room management followed Neonatal Resuscitation Program guidelines. The primary outcome was incidence of MAS. Clinicians diagnosing the syndrome and designating other study outcomes were masked to group assignment. An informed consent waiver was used. Analysis was by intention to treat.

FINDINGS: 18 infants in the suction group and 15 in the no suction group did not meet entry criteria after random assignment. 87 in the suction group were not suctioned, and 26 in the no suction group were suctioned. No significant difference between treatment groups was seen in the incidence of MAS (52 [4%] suction vs 47 [4%] no suction; relative risk 0.9, 95% CI 0.6-1.3), need for mechanical ventilation for MAS (24 [2%] vs 18 [1%]; 0.8, 0.4-1.4), mortality (9 [1%] vs 4 [0.3%]; 0.4, 0.1-1.5), or in the duration of ventilation, oxygen treatment, and hospital care.

INTERPRETATION: Routine intrapartum oropharyngeal and nasopharyngeal suctioning of term-gestation infants born through MSAF does not prevent MAS. Consideration should be given to revision of present recommendations.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s