Skip to main content

Advertising Disclaimer »

Main menu

  • Journals
    • Pediatrics
    • Hospital Pediatrics
    • Pediatrics in Review
    • NeoReviews
    • AAP Grand Rounds
    • AAP News
  • Authors/Reviewers
    • Submit Manuscript
    • Author Guidelines
    • Reviewer Guidelines
    • Editorial Policies
  • Content
    • Current Issue
    • Online First
    • Archive
    • Topic/Program Collections
    • Blog
  • Subscribe
  • Alerts
  • Careers
  • Other Publications
    • American Academy of Pediatrics

User menu

  • Log in

Search

  • Advanced search
American Academy of Pediatrics

AAP Gateway

Advanced Search

AAP Logo

  • Log in
  • Journals
    • Pediatrics
    • Hospital Pediatrics
    • Pediatrics in Review
    • NeoReviews
    • AAP Grand Rounds
    • AAP News
  • Authors/Reviewers
    • Submit Manuscript
    • Author Guidelines
    • Reviewer Guidelines
    • Editorial Policies
  • Content
    • Current Issue
    • Online First
    • Archive
    • Topic/Program Collections
    • Blog
  • Subscribe
  • Alerts
  • Careers
American Academy of Pediatrics
Commentary

Revisiting the Latest NRP Guidelines for Meconium: Searching for Clarity in a Murky Situation

Arun Gupta and Henry Chong Lee
Hospital Pediatrics March 2020, 10 (3) 300-302; DOI: https://doi.org/10.1542/hpeds.2020-0002
Arun Gupta
Department of Pediatrics, School of Medicine, Stanford University, Palo Alto, California
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Henry Chong Lee
Department of Pediatrics, School of Medicine, Stanford University, Palo Alto, California
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Info & Metrics
  • Comments
Loading
Download PDF

First, do no harm.

Attributed to various sources

To intubate or not to intubate an infant born through meconium-stained amniotic fluid (MSAF) has been a question that has challenged this often-quoted principle of first doing no harm, with the answer evolving significantly since the publication of the first Neonatal Resuscitation Program (NRP) guidelines >30 years ago.1 Those who trained and practiced in the 1980s and 1990s remember an era when all infants born through MSAF (both vigorous and nonvigorous) were routinely intubated after delivery or when decisions to intervene were perhaps based on the consistency and thickness of the meconium. NRP recommendations have since evolved, such that intubation was no longer recommended for vigorous infants born through MSAF after the fourth edition of the NRP guidelines was published in 2000.2

However, the recommendation for management of nonvigorous infants born through MSAF remained unchanged until the most recent seventh edition of the NRP guidelines (published in 2016), which no longer recommended routine intubation and tracheal suctioning for nonvigorous infants born through MSAF.3 These recommendations were made partly after a review of a few smaller single-center randomized controlled trials in which tracheal suctioning was compared with no suctioning in nonvigorous infants born through MSAF.4,5 On the basis of this review and the lack of evidence to support routine intubation and tracheal suctioning of nonvigorous infants born through MSAF, the most recent NRP recommendations were made in the context of avoiding the potential harm of intubation and the subsequent delay in initiating the initial steps of neonatal resuscitation.

However, do we do more harm by intubating or by not intubating these infants? In recent studies, others have attempted to shed light on this question. Aldhafeeri et al6 conducted a retrospective single-center study, comparing outcomes before and after implementation of the most recent NRP guidelines, and found no significant difference in meconium aspiration related complications between the 2 groups. A retrospective study conducted by Chiruvolu et al7 revealed an increase in NICU admissions for respiratory causes and an increase in the need for mechanical ventilation, oxygen therapy, and use of surfactant after implementation of the new guidelines. However, no difference in the incidence of meconium aspiration syndrome (MAS) was observed. In this cohort study, the authors looked specifically at nonvigorous infants born through MSAF and noted that the proportion of these infants declined from 10% to 8% after adoption of the recent NRP guidelines. It is unclear if perhaps some of the nonvigorous infants in the preintervention period remained so because of attempts to withhold stimulation to perform intubation before the first cry. Nonetheless, the results of this study added to ongoing speculation regarding the latest changes in the NRP guidelines.

More recently, Kalra et al8 queried a large California database and showed no increase in the incidence or severity of MAS after adoption of the new guidelines. Edwards et al9 examined the Vermont Oxford Network database and found no increase in severe respiratory distress in infants with or without MAS and a decrease in NICU admissions. Both of these large population-based studies were limited by the databases studied, which only contained infants admitted to the NICU.

In this issue of Hospital Pediatrics, Myers and Gupta10 submit another entry into the literature to help us answer these questions. In this study, the authors examined the clinical outcomes of term (≥37 weeks’ gestational age) infants born through MSAF at a single large academic center before and after adoption of the seventh edition NRP guidelines.10 They found no difference among the 2 groups in NICU admission rates, length of stay, and need for respiratory support on admission. They did find a decrease in the need for respiratory support after the first day of life, improvement in 1-minute Apgar scores, and a decrease in the number of delivery room intubations. Their study stands apart in that they identified and included all deliveries attended for term infants born through MSAF at their institution. They did not include potentially higher-risk late preterm infants in their cohort, nor did they limit their denominator to only those classified as nonvigorous at birth or to those admitted to the NICU.

All the studies to date have had various strengths and limitations. Although population-based studies benefit from large numbers of infants across multiple centers, there is often a lack of detail on the characteristics of meconium, the infant, and the therapies received at the time of delivery.8,9 A large multicenter randomized controlled trial would be optimal in answering the question of ideal management for nonvigorous infants born through MSAF. However, challenges remain in performing such a trial. Furthermore, as rates of MAS and the need for extracorporeal membrane oxygenation continue to decline, the sample size to have adequate power for such a trial may be prohibitively large. In the meantime, further well-designed observational studies are useful in adding to the current available evidence.

In this study,10 an important additional question related to the potential decline of intubation experience in practitioners and trainees is also asked. In an era of value-based care, we are performing fewer procedures and interventions as we move toward safely doing less in many areas of medicine.11 Furthermore, because work-hour limits have reduced the time spent by pediatric trainees in inpatient settings, there are fewer opportunities for procedural experience, including neonatal intubation. This quandary is not new because opportunities for intubation, particularly in the delivery room, have been declining for some time.12–14 The 2000 NRP recommendations, limiting intubations for vigorous infants born through MSAF, began a decline in delivery room intubation opportunities.15 Other recent efforts to provide more noninvasive respiratory support for preterm infants have also led to subsequent decreases in neonatal intubation opportunities.16,17 The latest seventh edition NRP guidelines are just the latest set of recommendations advocating for less invasive interventions, leading to even fewer potential opportunities for neonatal intubation.

Although the decision to not intubate may benefit the individual patient, inadequate procedural experience for trainees and the subsequent decline in procedural skills may have other implications. It has already been shown that a majority of residents are currently unable to achieve competency in neonatal intubation.18,19 So, how do we train the next generation so that they are proficient in these procedures? Simulation may be an answer, although it cannot fully substitute for real-life experience. Other complementary educational techniques and modalities, including use of video laryngoscopy and expert modeling, have also been suggested.18 As the number of procedural opportunities continues to decrease, this will continue to be an ongoing problem. In the current era, we have to question whether residency training and NRP training are enough for trainees to gain proficiency in neonatal intubation.

The search for clarity on the management of infants born through MSAF in the delivery room continues. Although many welcomed the previous change away from intubating vigorous and crying infants born through MSAF, the more recent recommendation to not routinely intubate nonvigorous infants born through MSAF has been met with greater trepidation. In the absence of more conclusive evidence, the burden of proof remains on proving the benefit of a potentially harmful intervention in this subset of infants. In the absence of this proof, we continue to be guided by the tenet of first doing no harm and avoiding routine intubation and tracheal suctioning for nonvigorous infants born through MSAF.20 This study adds to the current body of literature to support that notion.10 However, the need still remains for further well-designed prospective studies to provide clearer answers to these questions. In the meantime, the answers (much like the consistency of MSAF) remain somewhat murky.

Footnotes

  • Dr Gupta drafted and revised the initial manuscript; Dr Lee critically reviewed and revised the manuscript; and all authors approved the final manuscript as submitted.

  • FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE: The authors have indicated they have no financial relationships relevant to this article to disclose.

  • FUNDING: No external funding.

  • POTENTIAL CONFLICT OF INTEREST: Drs Gupta and Lee are both current members of the Neonatal Resuscitation Program Steering Committee.

References

  1. ↵
    1. Halamek LP
    . Educational perspectives: the genesis, adaptation, and evolution of the neonatal resuscitation program. NeoReviews. 2008;9(4):e142–e149
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  2. ↵
    1. Kattwinkel J,
    2. Zaichkin J,
    3. Denson SE,
    4. Niermeyer S
    , eds. Textbook of Neonatal Resuscitation. 4th ed. Elk Grove Village, IL: American Academy of Pediatrics; 2000
  3. ↵
    1. Weiner GM,
    2. Zaichkin J
    , eds. Textbook of Neonatal Resuscitation (NRP). 7th ed. Elk Grove Village, IL: American Academy of Pediatrics; 2016
  4. ↵
    1. Nangia S,
    2. Sunder S,
    3. Biswas R,
    4. Saili A
    . Endotracheal suction in term non vigorous meconium stained neonates-a pilot study. Resuscitation. 2016;105:79–84
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  5. ↵
    1. Chettri S,
    2. Adhisivam B,
    3. Bhat BV
    . Endotracheal suction for nonvigorous neonates born through meconium stained amniotic fluid: a randomized controlled trial. J Pediatr. 2015;166(5):1208–1213.e1
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  6. ↵
    1. Aldhafeeri FM,
    2. Aldhafiri FM,
    3. Bamehriz M,
    4. Al-Wassia H
    . Have the 2015 Neonatal Resuscitation Program Guidelines changed the management and outcome of infants born through meconium-stained amniotic fluid? Ann Saudi Med. 2019;39(2):87–91
    OpenUrl
  7. ↵
    1. Chiruvolu A,
    2. Miklis KK,
    3. Chen E,
    4. Petrey B,
    5. Desai S
    . Delivery room management of meconium-stained newborns and respiratory support. Pediatrics. 2018;142(6):e20181485
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  8. ↵
    1. Kalra VK,
    2. Lee HC,
    3. Sie L,
    4. Ratnasiri AW,
    5. Underwood MA,
    6. Lakshminrusimha S
    . Change in neonatal resuscitation guidelines and trends in incidence of meconium aspiration syndrome in California. J Perinatol. 2020;40(1):46–55
    OpenUrl
  9. ↵
    1. Edwards EM,
    2. Lakshminrusimha S,
    3. Ehret DEY,
    4. Horbar JD
    . NICU admissions for meconium aspiration syndrome before and after a national resuscitation program suctioning guideline change. Children (Basel). 2019;6(5):E68
    OpenUrl
  10. ↵
    1. Myers P,
    2. Gupta AG
    . Impact of the revised NRP meconium aspiration guidelines on term infants outcomes. Hosp Pediatr. 2020;10(3)
  11. ↵
    1. Schroeder AR,
    2. Harris SJ,
    3. Newman TB
    . Safely doing less: a missing component of the patient safety dialogue. Pediatrics. 2011;128(6). Available at: www.pediatrics.org/cgi/content/full/128/6/e1596
  12. ↵
    1. Leone TA,
    2. Rich W,
    3. Finer NN
    . Neonatal intubation: success of pediatric trainees. J Pediatr. 2005;146(5):638–641
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Lee HC,
    2. Chitkara R,
    3. Halamek LP,
    4. Hintz SR
    . A national survey of pediatric residents and delivery room training experience. J Pediatr. 2010;157(1):158–161.e3
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  13. ↵
    1. Lee HC,
    2. Rhee CJ,
    3. Sectish TC,
    4. Hintz SR
    . Changes in attendance at deliveries by pediatric residents 2000 to 2005. Am J Perinatol. 2009;26(2):129–134
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  14. ↵
    1. Kabbur PM,
    2. Herson VC,
    3. Zaremba S,
    4. Lerer T
    . Have the year 2000 neonatal resuscitation program guidelines changed the delivery room management or outcome of meconium-stained infants? J Perinatol. 2005;25(11):694–697
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  15. ↵
    1. Lee HC,
    2. Powers RJ,
    3. Bennett MV,
    4. et al
    . Implementation methods for delivery room management: a quality improvement comparison study. Pediatrics. 2014;134(5). Available at: www.pediatrics.org/cgi/content/full/134/5/e1378
  16. ↵
    1. Finer NN,
    2. Carlo WA,
    3. Walsh MC,
    4. et al
    ; SUPPORT Study Group of the Eunice Kennedy Shriver NICHD Neonatal Research Network. Early CPAP versus surfactant in extremely preterm infants [published correction appears in N Engl J Med. 2010;362(23):2235]. N Engl J Med. 2010;362(21):1970–1979
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  17. ↵
    1. Gilhooly J,
    2. Redden HR,
    3. Leonard DT
    . Competency in neonatal endotracheal intubation: mission impossible? Pediatrics. 2015;135(5). Available at: www.pediatrics.org/cgi/content/full/135/5/e1290
  18. ↵
    1. DeMeo SD,
    2. Katakam L,
    3. Goldberg RN,
    4. Tanaka D
    . Predicting neonatal intubation competency in trainees. Pediatrics. 2015;135(5). Available at: www.pediatrics.org/cgi/content/full/135/5/e1229
  19. ↵
    1. Strand ML,
    2. Lee HC,
    3. Kawakami M,
    4. et al
    . Tracheal suctioning of meconium at birth for non-vigorous infants: a systematic review and meta-analysis. 2019. Available at: https://costr.ilcor.org/document/tracheal-suctioning-of-meconium-at-birth-for-non-vigorous-infants-a-systematic-review-and-meta-analysis-nls-865. Accessed January 2, 2020
  • Copyright © 2020 by the American Academy of Pediatrics
View Abstract
PreviousNext
Back to top

Advertising Disclaimer »

In this issue

Hospital Pediatrics: 10 (3)
Hospital Pediatrics
Vol. 10, Issue 3
1 Mar 2020
  • Table of Contents
  • Table of Contents (PDF)
  • Index by author
View this article with LENS
PreviousNext
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on American Academy of Pediatrics.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Revisiting the Latest NRP Guidelines for Meconium: Searching for Clarity in a Murky Situation
(Your Name) has sent you a message from American Academy of Pediatrics
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the American Academy of Pediatrics web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Request Permissions
Article Alerts
Log in
You will be redirected to aap.org to login or to create your account.
Or Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
Citation Tools
Revisiting the Latest NRP Guidelines for Meconium: Searching for Clarity in a Murky Situation
Arun Gupta, Henry Chong Lee
Hospital Pediatrics Mar 2020, 10 (3) 300-302; DOI: 10.1542/hpeds.2020-0002

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Share
Revisiting the Latest NRP Guidelines for Meconium: Searching for Clarity in a Murky Situation
Arun Gupta, Henry Chong Lee
Hospital Pediatrics Mar 2020, 10 (3) 300-302; DOI: 10.1542/hpeds.2020-0002
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
Print
Download PDF
Insight Alerts
  • Table of Contents

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Footnotes
    • References
  • Info & Metrics
  • Comments

Related Articles

  • No related articles found.
  • PubMed
  • Google Scholar

Cited By...

  • No citing articles found.
  • Google Scholar

More in this TOC Section

  • PHM Fellowships: Advanced Training for an Evolving Field
  • Asthma to EVALI: Tobacco Use Is a Pediatric Problem
  • COVID-19 and Kawasaki Disease: Finding the Signal in the Noise
Show more Commentary

Similar Articles

Subjects

  • Fetus/Newborn Infant
    • Fetus/Newborn Infant
    • Neonatology
  • Journal Info
  • Editorial Board
  • Editorial Policies
  • Overview
  • Licensing Information
  • Authors/Reviewers
  • Author Guidelines
  • Reviewer Guidelines
  • Submit My Manuscript
  • Librarians
  • Institutional Subscriptions
  • Usage Stats
  • Support
  • Subscribe
  • Contact Us
  • Resources
  • Media Kit
  • About
  • International Access
  • Terms of Use
  • Privacy Statement
  • FAQ
  • RSS Feeds
  • shopAAP
  • AAP.org
  • Follow American Academy of Pediatrics on Instagram
  • Visit American Academy of Pediatrics on Facebook
  • Follow American Academy of Pediatrics on Twitter
  • Follow American Academy of Pediatrics on Youtube
American Academy of Pediatrics

© 2021 American Academy of Pediatrics