Article Text

PDF

PS-278 Automated Versus Manual Fio2 Control At Different Saturation Targets In Preterm Infants
  1. A Van Kaam1,
  2. H Hummler2,
  3. M Wilinska3,
  4. J Swietlinski4,
  5. M Lal5,
  6. A Te Pas6,
  7. G Lista7,
  8. S Gupta8,
  9. C Fajardo9,
  10. W Onland1,
  11. M Waitz2,
  12. M Warakomska3,
  13. F Cavigioli7,
  14. E Bancalari10,
  15. N Claure10,
  16. T Bachman11
  1. 1Neonatology, Emma Children’s Hospital/Academic Medical Center, Amsterdam, Netherlands
  2. 2Neonatology, University Medical Center, Ulm, Germany
  3. 3Neonatology, Center Medical Post Graduate Education, Warsaw, Poland
  4. 4Neonatology, City Hospital, Ruda Slaska, Poland
  5. 5Neonatology, James Cook University Hospital, Middlesbrough, UK
  6. 6Neonatology, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, Netherlands
  7. 7Neonatology, Vittore Buzzi Children’s Hospital, Milano, Italy
  8. 8Neonatology, University Hospital North Tees, Stockton-Cleveland, UK
  9. 9Neonatology, Alberta Children’s Hospital, Calgary, Canada
  10. 10Neonatology, University of Miami, Miami, USA
  11. 11Economedtrx, Lake Arrowhead, USA

Abstract

Background Preterm infants spend only 50% of time within the target oxygen saturation (SpO2) during manual FiO2 control (M-FiO2). Automated FiO2 control (A-FiO2) improves SpO2 targeting but it is uncertain if this applies to different SpO2 target ranges and during non-invasive support (NIVS) and mechanical ventilation (MV).

Objective To compare the efficacy of A-FiO2 vs M-FiO2 in keeping two different SpO2 targets during NIVS or MV.

Design/methods Preterm infants on FiO2 >0.21 receiving NIVS or MV were randomised to SpO2 targets 89–93% or 91–95% and underwent M-FiO2 and A-FiO2 for 24 h each, in random sequence.

Results 80 infants (GA:26 w, age:18 d) were included (NIVS = 48, MV = 32). Time within target increased and below target decreased during A-FiO2 compared with M-FiO2, especially in the lower target range. There was a reduction in time and hypoxemia episodes with SpO2 < 80% during A-FiO2. Outcomes did not differ between NIVS or MV.

Conclusions Automated FiO2 control improved SpO2 targeting across different SpO2 ranges and reduced hypoxemia with less workload during both NIVS and MV.

Abstract PS-278 Table 1

Statistics from Altmetric.com

Request permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.