INTRODUCTION: Many practitioners routinely treat infants whose mean arterial blood pressure in mm Hg is less than their gestational age in weeks (GA). OBJECTIVE: To assess the effectiveness of utilising a combined approach of clinical signs, metabolic acidosis and absolute blood pressure (BP) values when deciding to treat hypotension in the extremely low birthweight (ELBW) infant. METHODS: Retrospective cohort study of all live born ELBW infants admitted to our neonatal intensive care unit over a 4-year period. Patients were grouped as either normotensive (BP never less than GA), hypotensive and not treated (BP

We explored the opinions of healthcare providers on the antenatal management and outcome of preterm delivery at less than 28 weeks gestation. An anonymous postal questionnaire was sent to health care providers. The response rate was 55% (74% Obstetrician, 70% neonatologist). Twenty four weeks is the limit at which most would advocate intervention. At 23 weeks 67% of neonatologists advocate antenatal steroids. 50% of all health care providers advocate cardiotocographic monitoring at 24 weeks gestation. Written information on survival and long-term outcome is provided by 8% of the respondents. Neonatologists (50%) were more likely than obstetrician (40%) to advocate caesarean section at 25 weeks. We conclude that 24 weeks is the limit at which most would advocate intervention. Significant variation exists both between and within each health care group at less than 25 weeks. Establishment and provision of national outcome data may aid decision making at the limits of viability.

A large proportion of very preterm infants receive treatment for hypotension. The definition of hypotension is unclear, and, currently, there is no evidence that treating it improves outcomes or, indeed, which treatment to choose among the available alternatives. Assessment of circulatory adequacy of the preterm infant requires a careful clinical assessment and may also require ancillary investigations. The most commonly used interventions, fluid boluses and dopamine, are problematic: fluid boluses are statistically associated with worse clinical outcomes and may not even increase blood pressure, whereas dopamine increases blood pressure mostly by causing vasoconstriction and may decrease perfusion. For neither intervention is there any reliable data showing clinical benefit. Prospective trials of intervention for hypotension and circulatory compromise are urgently required.

AIMS: To determine whether healthcare providers apply the best interest principle equally to different resuscitation decisions. METHODS: An anonymous questionnaire was distributed to consultants, trainees in neonatology, paediatrics, obstetrics and 4th medical students. It examined resuscitation scenarios of critically ill patients all needing immediate resuscitation. Outcomes were described including survival and potential long-term sequelae. Respondents were asked whether they would intubate, whether resuscitation was in the patients best interest, would they accept surrogate refusal to initiate resuscitation and in what order they would resuscitate. RESULTS: The response rate was 74%. The majority would wish resuscitation for all except the 80-year-old. It was in the best interest of the 2-month-old and the 7-year-old to be resuscitated compared to the remaining scenarios (p value <0.05 for each comparison). Approximately one quarter who believed it was in a patient best interests to be resuscitated would nonetheless accept the family refusing resuscitation. Medical students were statistically more likely to advocate resuscitation in each category. CONCLUSION: These results suggest resuscitation is not solely related to survival or long-term outcome and the best interest principle is applied differently, more so at the beginning of life.

These results suggest resuscitation is not solely related to survival or long-term outcome and the best interest principle is applied differently, more so at the beginning of life.

OBJECTIVE: (1) To assess peak inspiratory pressure (PIP), positive end expiratory pressure (PEEP) and maximum pressure relief (P(max)) at different rates of gas flow, when the Neopuff had been set to function at 5 l/min. (2) To assess maximum PIP and PEEP at a flow rate of 10 l/min with a simulated air leak of 50%. DESIGN: 5 Neopuffs were set to a PIP of 20, PEEP of 5 and P(max) of 30 cm H(2)O at a gas flow of 5 l/min. PIP, PEEP and P(max) were recorded at flow rates of 10, 15 l/min and maximum flow. Maximum achievable pressures at 10 l/min gas flow, with a 50% air leak, were measured. RESULTS: At gas flow of 15 l/min, mean PEEP increased to 20 (95% CI 20 to 21), PIP to 28 (95% CI 28 to 29) and the P(max) to 40 cm H(2)O (95% CI 38 to 42). At maximum flow (85 l/min) a PEEP of 71 (95% CI 51 to 91) and PIP of 92 cm H(2)O (95% CI 69 to 115) were generated. At 10 l/min flow, with an air leak of 50%, the maximum PEEP and PIP were 21 (95% CI 19 to 23) and 69 cm H(2)O (95% CI 66 to 71). CONCLUSIONS: The maximum pressure relief valve is overridden by increasing the rate of gas flow and potentially harmful PIP and PEEP can be generated. Even in the presence of a 50% gas leak, more than adequate pressures can be provided at 10 l/min gas flow. We recommend the limitation of gas flow to a rate of 10 l/min as an added safety mechanism for this device.

Fathers' knowledge base and attitudes influence breastfeeding practice. We aimed to evaluate if Irish fathers felt included in the breastfeeding education and decision process. 67 fathers completed questionnaires, which assessed their role in the decision to breastfeed, knowledge regarding the benefits of breastfeeding and attitude towards breastfeeding.Forty-two (62.7%) of their partners were breastfeeding. Antenatal classes were attended by 38 (56.7%); 59 (88.1%) discussed breastfeeding with their partners and 26 (38.8%) felt that the decision was made together. Twelve (48%) fathers of formula fed infants were unaware that breastfeeding was healthier for the baby. Most fathers (80.6%) felt that breastfeeding was the mother's decision and most (82.1%) felt that antenatal information was aimed at mothers only. Irish fathers remain relatively uninformed regarding the benefits of breastfeeding. This may contribute to their exclusion from the decision to breastfeed. Antenatal education should incorporate fathers more, and this may result in an improvement in our breastfeeding rates.