Cargando…

Evaluation of two SpO(2) alarm strategies during automated FiO(2) control in the NICU: a randomized crossover study

BACKGROUND: Changes in oxygen saturation (SpO(2)) exposure have been shown to have a marked impact on neonatal outcomes and therefore careful titration of inspired oxygen is essential. In routine use, however, the frequency of SpO(2) alarms not requiring intervention results in alarm fatigue and its...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Warakomska, Malgorzata, Bachman, Thomas E, Wilinska, Maria
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2019
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6501373/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31060536
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12887-019-1496-5
_version_ 1783416099886333952
author Warakomska, Malgorzata
Bachman, Thomas E
Wilinska, Maria
author_facet Warakomska, Malgorzata
Bachman, Thomas E
Wilinska, Maria
author_sort Warakomska, Malgorzata
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Changes in oxygen saturation (SpO(2)) exposure have been shown to have a marked impact on neonatal outcomes and therefore careful titration of inspired oxygen is essential. In routine use, however, the frequency of SpO(2) alarms not requiring intervention results in alarm fatigue and its corresponding risk. SpO(2) control systems that automate oxygen adjustments (Auto-FiO(2)) have been shown to be safe and effective. We speculated that when using Auto-FiO(2), alarm settings could be refined to reduce unnecessary alarms, without compromising safety. METHODS: An unblinded randomized crossover study was conducted in a single NICU among infants routinely managed with Auto-FiO(2). During the first 6 days of respiratory support a tight and a loose alarm strategy were switched each 24 h. A balanced block randomization was used. The tight strategy set the alarms at the prescribed SpO(2) target range, with a 30-s delay. The loose strategy set the alarms 2 wider, with a 90-s delay. The effectiveness outcome was the frequency of SpO(2) alarms, and the safety outcomes were time at SpO(2) extremes (< 80, > 98%). We hypothesized that the loose strategy would result in a marked decrease in the frequency of SpO(2) alarms, and no increases at SpO(2) extremes with 20 subjects. Within subject differences between alarm strategies for the primary outcomes were evaluated with Wilcoxon signed-rank test. RESULTS: During a 13-month period 26 neonates were randomized. The analysis included 21 subjects with 49 days of both tight and loose intervention. The loose alarm strategy resulted in a reduction in the median rate of SpO(2) alarms from 5.2 to 1.6 per hour (p <  0.001, 95%-CI difference 1.6–3.7). The incidence of hypoxemia and hyperoxemia were very low (less than 0.1%-time) with no difference associated with the alarm strategy (95%-CI difference less than 0.0–0.2%). CONCLUSIONS: In this group of infants we found a marked advantage of the looser alarm strategy. We conclude that the paradigms of alarm strategies used for manual titration of oxygen need to be reconsidered when using Auto-FiO(2). We speculate that with optimal settings false positive SpO(2) alarms can be minimized, with better vigilance of clinically relevant alarms. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Retrospectively registered 15 May 2018 at ISRCTN (49239883). ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (10.1186/s12887-019-1496-5) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6501373
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2019
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-65013732019-05-10 Evaluation of two SpO(2) alarm strategies during automated FiO(2) control in the NICU: a randomized crossover study Warakomska, Malgorzata Bachman, Thomas E Wilinska, Maria BMC Pediatr Research Article BACKGROUND: Changes in oxygen saturation (SpO(2)) exposure have been shown to have a marked impact on neonatal outcomes and therefore careful titration of inspired oxygen is essential. In routine use, however, the frequency of SpO(2) alarms not requiring intervention results in alarm fatigue and its corresponding risk. SpO(2) control systems that automate oxygen adjustments (Auto-FiO(2)) have been shown to be safe and effective. We speculated that when using Auto-FiO(2), alarm settings could be refined to reduce unnecessary alarms, without compromising safety. METHODS: An unblinded randomized crossover study was conducted in a single NICU among infants routinely managed with Auto-FiO(2). During the first 6 days of respiratory support a tight and a loose alarm strategy were switched each 24 h. A balanced block randomization was used. The tight strategy set the alarms at the prescribed SpO(2) target range, with a 30-s delay. The loose strategy set the alarms 2 wider, with a 90-s delay. The effectiveness outcome was the frequency of SpO(2) alarms, and the safety outcomes were time at SpO(2) extremes (< 80, > 98%). We hypothesized that the loose strategy would result in a marked decrease in the frequency of SpO(2) alarms, and no increases at SpO(2) extremes with 20 subjects. Within subject differences between alarm strategies for the primary outcomes were evaluated with Wilcoxon signed-rank test. RESULTS: During a 13-month period 26 neonates were randomized. The analysis included 21 subjects with 49 days of both tight and loose intervention. The loose alarm strategy resulted in a reduction in the median rate of SpO(2) alarms from 5.2 to 1.6 per hour (p <  0.001, 95%-CI difference 1.6–3.7). The incidence of hypoxemia and hyperoxemia were very low (less than 0.1%-time) with no difference associated with the alarm strategy (95%-CI difference less than 0.0–0.2%). CONCLUSIONS: In this group of infants we found a marked advantage of the looser alarm strategy. We conclude that the paradigms of alarm strategies used for manual titration of oxygen need to be reconsidered when using Auto-FiO(2). We speculate that with optimal settings false positive SpO(2) alarms can be minimized, with better vigilance of clinically relevant alarms. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Retrospectively registered 15 May 2018 at ISRCTN (49239883). ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (10.1186/s12887-019-1496-5) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users. BioMed Central 2019-05-06 /pmc/articles/PMC6501373/ /pubmed/31060536 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12887-019-1496-5 Text en © The Author(s). 2019 Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.
spellingShingle Research Article
Warakomska, Malgorzata
Bachman, Thomas E
Wilinska, Maria
Evaluation of two SpO(2) alarm strategies during automated FiO(2) control in the NICU: a randomized crossover study
title Evaluation of two SpO(2) alarm strategies during automated FiO(2) control in the NICU: a randomized crossover study
title_full Evaluation of two SpO(2) alarm strategies during automated FiO(2) control in the NICU: a randomized crossover study
title_fullStr Evaluation of two SpO(2) alarm strategies during automated FiO(2) control in the NICU: a randomized crossover study
title_full_unstemmed Evaluation of two SpO(2) alarm strategies during automated FiO(2) control in the NICU: a randomized crossover study
title_short Evaluation of two SpO(2) alarm strategies during automated FiO(2) control in the NICU: a randomized crossover study
title_sort evaluation of two spo(2) alarm strategies during automated fio(2) control in the nicu: a randomized crossover study
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6501373/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31060536
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12887-019-1496-5
work_keys_str_mv AT warakomskamalgorzata evaluationoftwospo2alarmstrategiesduringautomatedfio2controlinthenicuarandomizedcrossoverstudy
AT bachmanthomase evaluationoftwospo2alarmstrategiesduringautomatedfio2controlinthenicuarandomizedcrossoverstudy
AT wilinskamaria evaluationoftwospo2alarmstrategiesduringautomatedfio2controlinthenicuarandomizedcrossoverstudy