Respiratory distress, particularly respiratory distress syndrome (RDS), is the single most important cause of morbidity and mortality in preterm infants. In infants with progressive respiratory ...insufficiency, intermittent positive pressure ventilation (IPPV) with surfactant has been the usual treatment, but it is invasive, potentially resulting in airway and lung injury. Continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) has been used for the prevention and treatment of respiratory distress, as well as for the prevention of apnoea, and in weaning from IPPV. Its use in the treatment of RDS might reduce the need for IPPV and its sequelae.
To determine the effect of continuous distending pressure in the form of CPAP on the need for IPPV and associated morbidity in spontaneously breathing preterm infants with respiratory distress.
We used the standard strategy of Cochrane Neonatal to search CENTRAL (2020, Issue 6); Ovid MEDLINE and Epub Ahead of Print, In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations, Daily and Versions; and CINAHL on 30 June 2020. We also searched clinical trials databases and the reference lists of retrieved articles for randomised controlled trials and quasi-randomised trials.
All randomised or quasi-randomised trials of preterm infants with respiratory distress were eligible. Interventions were CPAP by mask, nasal prong, nasopharyngeal tube or endotracheal tube, compared with spontaneous breathing with supplemental oxygen as necessary.
We used standard methods of Cochrane and its Neonatal Review Group, including independent assessment of risk of bias and extraction of data by two review authors. We used the GRADE approach to assess the certainty of evidence. Subgroup analyses were planned on the basis of birth weight (greater than or less than 1000 g or 1500 g), gestational age (groups divided at about 28 weeks and 32 weeks), timing of application (early versus late in the course of respiratory distress), pressure applied (high versus low) and trial setting (tertiary compared with non-tertiary hospitals; high income compared with low income) MAIN RESULTS: We included five studies involving 322 infants; two studies used face mask CPAP, two studies used nasal CPAP and one study used endotracheal CPAP and continuing negative pressure for a small number of less ill babies. For this update, we included one new trial. CPAP was associated with lower risk of treatment failure (death or use of assisted ventilation) (typical risk ratio (RR) 0.64, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.50 to 0.82; typical risk difference (RD) -0.19, 95% CI -0.28 to -0.09; number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) 6, 95% CI 4 to 11; I
= 50%; 5 studies, 322 infants; very low-certainty evidence), lower use of ventilatory assistance (typical RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.54 to 0.96; typical RD -0.13, 95% CI -0.25 to -0.02; NNTB 8, 95% CI 4 to 50; I
= 55%; very low-certainty evidence) and lower overall mortality (typical RR 0.53, 95% CI 0.34 to 0.83; typical RD -0.11, 95% CI -0.18 to -0.04; NNTB 9, 95% CI 2 to 13; I
= 0%; 5 studies, 322 infants; moderate-certainty evidence). CPAP was associated with increased risk of pneumothorax (typical RR 2.48, 95% CI 1.16 to 5.30; typical RD 0.09, 95% CI 0.02 to 0.16; number needed to treat for an additional harmful outcome (NNTH) 11, 95% CI 7 to 50; I
= 0%; 4 studies, 274 infants; low-certainty evidence). There was no evidence of a difference in bronchopulmonary dysplasia, defined as oxygen dependency at 28 days (RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.35 to 3.13; I
= 0%; 2 studies, 209 infants; very low-certainty evidence). The trials did not report use of surfactant, intraventricular haemorrhage, retinopathy of prematurity, necrotising enterocolitis and neurodevelopment outcomes in childhood.
In preterm infants with respiratory distress, the application of CPAP is associated with reduced respiratory failure, use of mechanical ventilation and mortality and an increased rate of pneumothorax compared to spontaneous breathing with supplemental oxygen as necessary. Three out of five of these trials were conducted in the 1970s. Therefore, the applicability of these results to current practice is unclear. Further studies in resource-poor settings should be considered and research to determine the most appropriate pressure level needs to be considered.
Cohort studies have suggested that nasal continuous positive airways pressure (CPAP) starting in the immediate postnatal period before the onset of respiratory disease (prophylactic CPAP) may be ...beneficial in reducing the need for intubation and intermittent positive pressure ventilation (IPPV) and in preventing bronchopulmonary dysplasia (BPD) in preterm or low birth weight infants.
To determine if prophylactic nasal CPAP started soon after birth regardless of respiratory status in the very preterm or very low birth weight infant reduces the use of IPPV and the incidence of bronchopulmonary dysplasia (BPD) without adverse effects.
We used the standard search strategy of Cochrane Neonatal to search the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL 2016, Issue 1), MEDLINE via PubMed (1966 to 31 January 2016), EMBASE (1980 to 31 January 2016), and CINAHL (1982 to 31 January 2016). We also searched clinical trials databases, conference proceedings, and the reference lists of retrieved articles for randomised controlled trials and quasi-randomised trials.
All trials using random or quasi-random patient allocation of very preterm infants (under 32 weeks' gestation) or less than 1500 grams at birth were eligible. We included trials if they compared prophylactic nasal CPAP started soon after birth regardless of the respiratory status of the infant with 'standard' methods of treatment such as IPPV, oxygen therapy or supportive treatment. We excluded studies where prophylactic CPAP was compared with CPAP along with other interventions.
We used the standard methods of Cochrane and its Neonatal Review Group, including independent study selection, assessment of trial quality and extraction of data by two authors. Data were analysed using risk ratio (RR) and the meta-analysis was performed using a fixed-effect model.
Seven trials recruiting 3123 babies were included in the meta-analysis. Four trials recruiting 765 babies compared CPAP with supportive care and three trials (2364 infants) compared CPAP with mechanical ventilation. Apart from a lack of blinding of the intervention all studies were of low risk of bias.In the comparison of CPAP with supportive care there was a reduction in failed treatment (typical risk ratio (RR) 0.66, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.45 to 0.98; typical risk difference (RD) -0.16, 95% CI -0.34 to 0.02; 4 studies, 765 infants, very low quality evidence). There was no reduction in bronchopulmonary dysplasia (BPD) or mortality.In trials comparing CPAP with assisted ventilation with or without surfactant, CPAP resulted in a small but clinically significant reduction in the incidence of BPD at 36 weeks, (typical RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.79 to 0.99; typical RD -0.04, 95% CI -0.08 to 0.00; 3 studies, 772 infants, moderate-quality evidence); and death or BPD (typical RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.81 to 0.97; typical RD -0.05, 95% CI -0.09 to 0.01; 3 studies, 1042 infants, moderate-quality evidence). There was also a clinically important reduction in the need for mechanical ventilation (typical RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.42 to 0.59; typical RD -0.49, 95% CI -0.59 to -0.39; 2 studies, 760 infants, moderate-quality evidence); and the use of surfactant in the CPAP group (typical RR 0.54, 95% CI 0.40 to 0.73; typical RD -0.41, 95% CI -0.54 to -0.28; 3 studies, 1744 infants, moderate-quality evidence).
There is insufficient evidence to evaluate prophylactic CPAP compared to oxygen therapy and other supportive care. However when compared to mechanical ventilation prophylactic nasal CPAP in very preterm infants reduces the need for mechanical ventilation and surfactant and also reduces the incidence of BPD and death or BPD.
Cohort studies have suggested that nasal continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) starting in the immediate postnatal period before the onset of respiratory disease (prophylactic CPAP) may be ...beneficial in reducing the need for intubation and intermittent positive pressure ventilation (IPPV), and in preventing bronchopulmonary dysplasia (BPD), in preterm or low birth weight infants.
To determine if prophylactic nasal CPAP (started within the first 15 minutes) or very early nasal CPAP regardless of respiratory status (started within the first hour of life), reduces the use of mechanical ventilation and the incidence of bronchopulmonary dysplasia without any adverse effects in preterm infants.
A comprehensive search was run on 6 November 2020 in the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL via CRS Web) and MEDLINE via Ovid. We also searched the reference lists of retrieved studies.
We included all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs in preterm infants (under 37 weeks of gestation). We included trials if they compared prophylactic nasal CPAP (started within the first 15 minutes) or very early nasal CPAP (started within the first hour of life) in infants with minimal signs of respiratory distress with 'supportive care', such as supplemental oxygen therapy, standard nasal cannula, or mechanical ventilation. We excluded studies where prophylactic CPAP was compared with CPAP along with co-interventions.
We used the standard methods of Cochrane Neonatal, including independent study selection, assessment of trial quality, and extraction of data by two review authors.
We included eight trials (seven from the previous version of the review and one new study), recruiting 3201 babies, in the meta-analysis. Four trials, involving 765 babies, compared CPAP with supportive care, and three trials (2364 babies) compared CPAP with mechanical ventilation. One trial (72 babies) compared prophylactic CPAP with very early CPAP. Apart from a lack of blinding of the intervention, we judged seven studies to have a low risk of bias. However, one study had a high risk of selection bias. Prophylactic or very early CPAP compared to supportive care There may be a reduction in failed treatment (risk ratio (RR) 0.6, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.49 to 0.74; risk difference (RD) -0.16, 95% CI -0.34 to 0.02; 4 studies, 765 infants; very low certainty evidence). CPAP possibly reduces BPD at 36 weeks (RR 0.76, 95% CI 0.51 to 1.14; 3 studies, 683 infants, moderate certainty evidence); there may be little or no difference in death (RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.56 to 1.93; 4 studies, 765 infants; moderate certainty evidence). Prophylactic CPAP may reduce the composite outcome of death or BPD (RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.40 to 1.19; 1 study, 256 infants; low certainty evidence). There may be no difference in pulmonary air leak (pneumothorax) (RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.35 to 1.16; 3 studies, 568 infants; low certainty evidence), or intraventricular haemorrhage (IVH) Grade 3 or 4 (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.39 to 2.37; 2 studies, 486 infants; moderate certainty evidence). Neurodevelopmental impairment was not reported in any of the studies. Prophylactic or very early CPAP compared to mechanical ventilation There was probably a reduction in the incidence of BPD at 36 weeks (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.8 to 0.99; RD -0.04, 95% CI -0.08 to 0.00; 3 studies, 2150 infants; moderate certainty evidence); and death or BPD (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.81 to 0.97; RD -0.05, 95% CI -0.09 to 0.01; 3 studies, 2358 infants; moderate certainty evidence). There was also probably a reduction in the need for mechanical ventilation (failed treatment) (RR 0.49, 95% CI 0.45 to 0.54; RD -0.50, 95% CI -0.54 to -0.45; 2 studies, 1042 infants; moderate certainty evidence). There was probably a reduction in the incidence of death (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.03; 3 studies, 2358 infants; moderate certainty evidence); pulmonary air leak (pneumothorax) (RR 1.24, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.69; 3 studies, 2357 infants; low certainty evidence); and IVH Grade 3 or 4 (RR 1.09, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.39; 3 studies, 2301 infants; moderate certainty evidence). One study in this comparison reported that there was probably little or no difference between the groups in the incidence of neurodevelopmental impairment at 18 to 22 months (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.62 to 1.32; 976 infants; moderate certainty evidence). Prophylactic CPAP compared with very early CPAP There was one study in this comparison. We are very uncertain whether there is any difference in the incidence of BPD (RR 0.5, 95% CI 0.05 to 5.27; very low certainty evidence). The combined outcome of death and BPD was not reported, and failed treatment was reported but without data. There may have been little to no effect on death (RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.29 to1.94; 1 study, 72 infants; very low certainty evidence). Intraventricular haemorrhage Grade 3 or 4 and neurodevelopmental outcomes were not reported in this study. Pulmonary air leak (pneumothorax) was reported in this study, but there were no events in either group.
For preterm and very preterm infants, there is insufficient evidence to evaluate prophylactic CPAP compared to oxygen therapy and other supportive care. When compared to mechanical ventilation, prophylactic nasal CPAP in very preterm infants reduces the incidence of BPD, the combined outcome of death and BPD, and mechanical ventilation. There is probably no difference in neurodevelopmental impairment at 18 to 22 months of age. When prophylactic CPAP is compared to early CPAP, we are very uncertain about whether there is any difference between prophylactic and very early CPAP. There is no information about the effect of prophylactic or very early CPAP in late preterm infants. There is one study awaiting classification.
The application of continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) has been shown to have some benefits in the treatment of preterm infants with respiratory distress. CPAP has the potential to reduce lung ...damage, particularly if applied early before atelectasis has occurred. Early application may better conserve an infant's own surfactant stores and consequently may be more effective than later application.
• To determine if early compared with delayed initiation of CPAP results in lower mortality and reduced need for intermittent positive-pressure ventilation in preterm infants in respiratory distress ○ Subgroup analyses were planned a priori on the basis of weight (with subdivisions at 1000 grams and 1500 grams), gestation (with subdivisions at 28 and 32 weeks), and according to whether surfactant was used ▫ Sensitivity analyses based on trial quality were also planned ○ For this update, we have excluded trials using continuous negative pressure SEARCH METHODS: We used the standard search strategy of Cochrane Neonatal to search the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2020, Issue 6), in the Cochrane Library; Ovid MEDLINE(R) and Epub Ahead of Print, In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations Daily and Versions(R); and the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literatue (CINAHL), on 30 June 2020. We also searched clinical trials databases and the reference lists of retrieved articles for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs.
We included trials that used random or quasi-random allocation to either early or delayed CPAP for spontaneously breathing preterm infants in respiratory distress.
We used the standard methods of Cochrane and Cochrane Neonatal, including independent assessment of trial quality and extraction of data by two review authors. We used the GRADE approach to assess the certainty of evidence.
We found four studies that recruited a total of 119 infants. Two were quasi-randomised, and the other two did not provide details on the method of randomisation or allocation used. None of these studies used blinding of the intervention or the outcome assessor. Evidence showed uncertainty about whether early CPAP has an effect on subsequent use of intermittent positive-pressure ventilation (IPPV) (typical risk ratio (RR) 0.77, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.43 to 1.38; typical risk difference (RD) -0.08, 95% CI -0.23 to 0.08; I² = 0%, 4 studies, 119 infants; very low-certainty evidence) or mortality (typical RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.43 to 2.03; typical RD -0.02, 95% CI -0.15 to 0.12; I² = 33%, 4 studies, 119 infants; very low-certainty evidence). The outcome 'failed treatment' was not reported in any of these studies. There was an uncertain effect on air leak (pneumothorax) (typical RR 1.09, 95% CI 0.39 to 3.04, I² = 0%, 3 studies, 98 infants; very low-certainty evidence). No trials reported intraventricular haemorrhage or necrotising enterocolitis. No cases of retinopathy of prematurity were reported in one study (21 infants). One case of bronchopulmonary dysplasia was reported in each group in one study involving 29 infants. Long-term outcomes were not reported.
All four small trials included in this review were performed in the 1970s or the early 1980s, and we are very uncertain whether early application of CPAP confers clinical benefit in the treatment of respiratory distress, or whether it is associated with any adverse effects. Further trials should be directed towards establishing the appropriate level of CPAP and the timing and method of administration of surfactant when used along with CPAP.
Respiratory distress syndrome (RDS) is the single most important cause of morbidity and mortality in preterm infants. In infants with progressive respiratory insufficiency, intermittent positive ...pressure ventilation (IPPV) with surfactant is the standard treatment for the condition, but it is invasive, potentially resulting in airway and lung injury. Continuous distending pressure (CDP) has been used for the prevention and treatment of RDS, as well as for the prevention of apnoea, and in weaning from IPPV. Its use in the treatment of RDS might reduce the need for IPPV and its sequelae.
To determine the effect of continuous distending pressure (CDP) on the need for IPPV and associated morbidity in spontaneously breathing preterm infants with respiratory distress.Subgroup analyses were planned on the basis of birth weight (> or < 1000 or 1500 g), gestational age (groups divided at about 28 weeks and 32 weeks), methods of application of CDP (i.e. CPAP and CNP), application early versus late in the course of respiratory distress and high versus low pressure CDP and application of CDP in tertiary compared with non-tertiary hospitals, with the need for sensitivity analysis determined by trial quality.At the 2008 update, the objectives were modified to include preterm infants with respiratory failure.
We used the standard search strategy of the Neonatal Review Group. This included searches of the Oxford Database of Perinatal Trials, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, 2015 Issue 4), MEDLINE (1966 to 30 April 2015) and EMBASE (1980 to 30 April 2015) with no language restriction, as well as controlled-trials.com, clinicaltrials.gov and the International Clinical Trials Registry Platform of the World Health Organization (WHO).
All random or quasi-random trials of preterm infants with respiratory distress were eligible. Interventions were continuous distending pressure including continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) by mask, nasal prong, nasopharyngeal tube or endotracheal tube, or continuous negative pressure (CNP) via a chamber enclosing the thorax and the lower body, compared with spontaneous breathing with oxygen added as necessary.
We used standard methods of The Cochrane Collaboration and its Neonatal Review Group, including independent assessment of trial quality and extraction of data by each review author.
We included six studies involving 355 infants - two using face mask CPAP, two CNP, one nasal CPAP and one both CNP (for less ill babies) and endotracheal CPAP (for sicker babies). For this update, we included no new trials.Continuous distending pressure (CDP) is associated with lower risk of treatment failure (death or use of assisted ventilation) (typical risk ratio (RR) 0.65, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.52 to 0.81; typical risk difference (RD) -0.20, 95% CI -0.29 to -0.10; number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) 5, 95% CI 4 to 10; six studies; 355 infants), lower overall mortality (typical RR 0.52, 95% CI 0.32 to 0.87; typical RD -0.15, 95% CI -0.26 to -0.04; NNTB 7, 95% CI 4 to 25; six studies; 355 infants) and lower mortality in infants with birth weight above 1500 g (typical RR 0.24, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.84; typical RD -0.28, 95% CI -0.48 to -0.08; NNTB 4, 95% CI 2.00 to 13.00; two studies; 60 infants). Use of CDP is associated with increased risk of pneumothorax (typical RR 2.64, 95% CI 1.39 to 5.04; typical RD 0.10, 95% CI 0.04 to 0.17; number needed to treat for an additional harmful outcome (NNTH) 17, 95% CI 17.00 to 25.00; six studies; 355 infants). We found no difference in bronchopulmonary dysplasia (BPD), defined as oxygen dependency at 28 days (three studies, 260 infants), as well as no difference in outcome at nine to 14 years (one study, 37 infants).
In preterm infants with respiratory distress, the application of CDP as CPAP or CNP is associated with reduced respiratory failure and mortality and an increased rate of pneumothorax. Four out of six of these trials were done in the 1970s. Therefore, the applicability of these results to current practice is difficult to assess. Further research is required to determine the best mode of administration.
The benefits of six months exclusive breastfeeding are well established for both mother and infant. One of the 10 steps of the Baby Friendly Hospital Initiative is rooming-in (mother and baby ...together in the same room throughout hospitalisation). A Cochrane review found only one randomised controlled trial (RCT) examining the effects of continuous rooming-in versus nursery care on breastfeeding duration, and concluded there was insufficient evidence to support or refute either practice. We aimed to examine the effect of continuous or intermittent rooming-in on breastfeeding duration.
We included all prospective controlled studies (randomised and non-randomised) comparing rooming-in to nursery care that reported full or partial breastfeeding up to six months. We used the 2016 search results of the Cochrane review and updated the search to August 2018 using OVID MEDLINE. Duplicate data extraction and assessment of risk of bias were performed. Meta-analyses were performed using REVMAN 5. The GRADE approach was used to assess quality of evidence. Seven studies were included, five had 24-hour-per-day, one daytime only and one 8-hours-per-day rooming-in. Four studies had at least one additional co-intervention: Differences in delivery room management, and educational packages. All studies contributing to meta-analyses had 24-hour rooming-in. There was no difference in the proportion of infants on full breastfeeding at 3 months (RR 1.14; 95% CI 0.84 to 1.54; very-low-quality evidence), 4 months (RR 0.99; 95% CI 0.73 to 1.33; very-low-quality evidence) and 6 months (RR 0.95; 95% CI 0.57 to 1.58; low-quality evidence). The proportion of infants on partial breastfeeding at 3-4 months was higher with rooming-in (RR 1.31; 95% CI 1.06 to 1.61; very-low-quality evidence).
The addition of non-randomised prospective controlled studies to existing evidence did not add further information on the effects of rooming-in on breastfeeding duration but resulted in lower quality of evidence. Uncertainty about the effects of rooming-in on breastfeeding duration remains.
Mother-infant proximity and interactions after birth and during the early postpartum period are important for breast-milk production and breastfeeding success. Rooming-in and separate care are both ...traditional practices. Rooming-in involves keeping the mother and the baby together in the same room after birth for the duration of hospitalisation, whereas separate care is keeping the baby in the hospital nursery and the baby is either brought to the mother for breastfeeding or she walks to the nursery.
To assess the effect of mother-infant rooming-in versus separation on the duration of breastfeeding (exclusive and total duration of breastfeeding).
We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (30 May 2016) and reference lists of retrieved studies.
Randomised or quasi-randomised controlled trials (RCTs) investigating the effect of mother-infant rooming-in versus separate care after hospital birth or at home on the duration of breastfeeding, proportion of breastfeeding at six months and adverse neonatal and maternal outcomes.
Two review authors independently assessed the studies for inclusion and assessed trial quality. Two review authors extracted data. Data were checked for accuracy. We assessed the quality of the evidence using the GRADE approach.
We included one trial (involving 176 women) in this review. This trial included four groups with a factorial design. The factorial design took into account two factors, i.e. infant location in relation to the mother and the type of infant apparel. We combined three of the groups as the intervention (rooming-in) group and the fourth group acted as the control (separate care) and we analysed the results as a single pair-wise comparison. Primary outcomesThe primary outcome, duration of any breastfeeding, was reported by authors as median values because the distribution was found to be skewed. They reported the overall median duration of any breastfeeding to be four months, with no difference found between groups. Duration of exclusive breastfeeding and the proportion of infants being exclusively breastfed at six months of age was not reported in the trial. There was no difference found between the two groups in the proportion of infants receiving any breastfeeding at six months of age (risk ratio (RR) 0.84, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.51 to 1.39; one trial; 137 women; low-quality evidence). Secondary outcomesThe mean frequency of breastfeeds per day on day four postpartum for the rooming-in group was 8.3 (standard deviation (SD) 2.2), slightly higher than the separate care group, i.e. seven times per day. However, between-group comparison of this outcome was not appropriate since every infant in the separate care group was breastfed at a fixed schedule of seven times per day (SD = 0) resulting in no estimable comparison. The rate of exclusive breastfeeding on day four postpartum before discharge from hospital was significantly higher in the rooming-in group 86% (99 of 115) compared with separate care group, 45% (17 of 38), (RR 1.92; 95% CI 1.34 to 2.76; one trial, 153 women; low-quality evidence). None of our other pre-specified secondary outcomes were reported.
We found little evidence to support or refute the practice of rooming-in versus mother-infant separation. Further well-designed RCTs to investigate full mother-infant rooming-in versus partial rooming-in or separate care including all important outcomes are needed.
To successfully initiate and maintain breastfeeding for a longer duration, the World Health Organization's Ten Steps to Successful Breastfeeding recommends total avoidance of artificial teats or ...pacifiers for breastfeeding infants. Concerns have been raised that offering the pacifier instead of the breast to calm the infant may lead to less frequent episodes of breastfeeding and as a consequence may reduce breast-milk production and shorten duration of breastfeeding.
To assess the effect of restricted versus unrestricted pacifier use in healthy full-term newborns whose mothers have initiated breastfeeding and intend to exclusively breastfeed, on the duration of breastfeeding, other breastfeeding outcomes and infant health.
We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (30 June 2016) and reference lists of retrieved studies.
Randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials comparing restricted versus unrestricted pacifier use in healthy full-term newborns who have initiated breastfeeding.
Two review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion and risk of bias, extracted data and checked them for accuracy. The quality of the evidence was assessed using the GRADE approach.
We found three trials (involving 1915 babies) for inclusion in the review, but have included only two trials (involving 1302 healthy full-term breastfeeding infants) in the analysis. Meta-analysis of the two combined studies showed that pacifier use in healthy breastfeeding infants had no significant effect on the proportion of infants exclusively breastfed at three months (risk ratio (RR) 1.01; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.96 to 1.07, two studies, 1228 infants), and at four months of age (RR 1.01; 95% CI 0.94 to 1.09, one study, 970 infants, moderate-quality evidence), and also had no effect on the proportion of infants partially breastfed at three months (RR 1.00; 95% CI 0.98 to 1.02, two studies, 1228 infants), and at four months of age (RR 0.99; 95% CI 0.97 to 1.02, one study, 970 infants). None of the included trials reported data on the other primary outcomes, i.e. duration of partial or exclusive breastfeeding, or secondary outcomes: breastfeeding difficulties (mastitis, cracked nipples, breast engorgement); infant's health (dental malocclusion, otitis media, oral candidiasis; sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS)); maternal satisfaction and level of confidence in parenting. One study reported that avoidance of pacifiers had no effect on cry/fuss behavior at ages four, six, or nine weeks and also reported no effect on the risk of weaning before age three months, however the data were incomplete and so could not be included for analysis.
Pacifier use in healthy term breastfeeding infants, started from birth or after lactation is established, did not significantly affect the prevalence or duration of exclusive and partial breastfeeding up to four months of age. Evidence to assess the short-term breastfeeding difficulties faced by mothers and long-term effect of pacifiers on infants' health is lacking.
Breast milk is well recognised as the best food source for infants. The impact of antenatal breastfeeding (BF) education on the duration of BF has not been evaluated.
To assess the effectiveness of ...antenatal breastfeeding (BF) education for increasing BF initiation and duration.
We searched Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth's Trials Register on 1 March 2016, CENTRAL (The Cochrane Library, 2016, Issue 3), MEDLINE (1966 to 1 March 2016) and Scopus (January 1985 to 1 March 2016). We contacted experts and searched reference lists of retrieved articles.
All identified published, unpublished and ongoing randomised controlled trials (RCTs) assessing the effect of formal antenatal BF education or comparing two different methods of formal antenatal BF education, on the duration of BF. We included RCTs that only included antenatal interventions and excluded those that combined antenatal and intrapartum or postpartum BF education components. Cluster-randomised trials were included in this review. Quasi-randomised trials were not eligible for inclusion.
We assessed all potential studies identified as a result of the search strategy. Two review authors extracted data from each included study using the agreed form and assessed risk of bias. We resolved discrepancies through discussion. We assessed the quality of the evidence using the GRADE approach.
This review update includes 24 studies (10,056 women). Twenty studies (9789 women) contribute data to analyses. Most studies took place in high-income countries such as the USA, UK, Canada and Australia. In the first five comparisons, we display the included trials according to type of intervention without pooling data. For the 'Summary of findings' we pooled data for a summary effect.Five included studies were cluster-randomised trials: all of these adjusted data and reported adjustments as odds ratios (OR). We have analysed the data using the generic inverse variance method and presented results as odds ratios, because we were unable to derive a cluster-adjusted risk ratio from the published cluster-trial. We acknowledge that the use of odds ratio prevents the pooling of these cluster trials in our main analyses. One method of BF education with standard (routine) careThere were no group differences for duration of any BF in days or weeks. There was no evidence that interventions improved the proportion of women with any BF or exclusive BF at three or six months. Single trials of different interventions were unable to show that education improved initiation of BF, apart from one small trial at high risk of attrition bias. Many trial results marginally favoured the intervention but had wide confidence intervals crossing the line of no effect. BF complications such as mastitis and other BF problems were similar in treatment arms in single trials reporting these outcomes. Multiple methods of BF education versus standard careFor all trials included in this comparison we have presented the cluster-adjusted odds ratios as reported in trial publications. One three-arm study found the intervention of BF booklet plus video plus Lactation Consultant versus standard care improved the proportion of women exclusively BF at three months (OR 2.60, 95% CI 1.25 to 5.40; women = 159) and marginally at six months (OR 2.40, 95% CI 1.00 to 5.76; women = 175). For the same trial, an intervention arm without a lactation consultant but with the BF booklet and video did not have the same effect on proportion of women exclusively BF at three months (OR 1.80, 95% CI 0.80 to 4.05; women = 159) or six months (OR 0.90, 95% CI 0.30 to 2.70; women = 184). One study compared monthly BF sessions and weekly cell phone message versus standard care and reported improvements in the proportion of women exclusively BF at both three and six months (three months OR 1.80, 95% CI 1.10 to 2.95; women = 390; six months OR 2.40, 95% CI 1.40 to 4.11; women = 390). One study found monthly BF sessions and weekly cell phone messages improved initiation of BF over standard care (OR 2.61, 95% CI 1.61 to 4.24; women = 380). BF education session versus standard care, pooled analyses for 'Summary of findings' (SoF)This comparison does not include cluster-randomised trials reporting adjusted odds ratios. We did not downgrade any evidence for trials' lack of blinding; no trial had adequate blinding of staff and participants. The SoF table presents risk ratios for all outcomes analysed. For proportion of women exclusively BF there is no evidence that antenatal BF education improved BF at three months (RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.25; women = 822; studies = 3; moderate quality evidence) or at six months (RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.30; women = 2161; studies = 4; moderate quality evidence). For proportion of women with any BF there were no group differences in BF at three (average RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.18; women = 654; studies = 2; I² = 60%; low-quality evidence) or six months (average RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.23; women = 1636; studies = 4; I² = 61%; high-quality evidence). There was no evidence that antenatal BF education could improve initiation of BF (average RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.09; women = 3505; studies = 8; I² = 69%; high-quality evidence). Where we downgraded evidence this was due to small sample size or wide confidence intervals crossing the line of no effect, or both.There was insufficient data for subgroup analysis of mother's occupation or education.
There was no conclusive evidence supporting any antenatal BF education for improving initiation of BF, proportion of women giving any BF or exclusively BF at three or six months or the duration of BF. There is an urgent need to conduct a high-quality, randomised controlled study to evaluate the effectiveness and adverse effects of antenatal BF education, especially in low- and middle-income countries. Evidence in this review is primarily relevant to high-income settings.
Many women express concern about their ability to produce enough milk, and insufficient milk is frequently cited as the reason for supplementation and early termination of breastfeeding. When ...addressing this concern, it is important first to consider the influence of maternal and neonatal health, infant suck, proper latch, and feeding frequency on milk production, and that steps be taken to correct or compensate for any contributing issues. Oral galactagogues are substances that stimulate milk production. They may be pharmacological or non-pharmacological (natural). Natural galactagogues are usually botanical or other food agents. The choice between pharmacological or natural galactagogues is often influenced by familiarity and local customs. Evidence for the possible benefits and harms of galactagogues is important for making an informed decision on their use.
To assess the effect of oral galactagogues for increasing milk production in non-hospitalised breastfeeding mother-term infant pairs.
We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register, ClinicalTrials.gov, the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP), Health Research and Development Network - Phillippines (HERDIN), Natural Products Alert (Napralert), the personal reference collection of author LM, and reference lists of retrieved studies (4 November 2019).
We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs (including published abstracts) comparing oral galactagogues with placebo, no treatment, or another oral galactagogue in mothers breastfeeding healthy term infants. We also included cluster-randomised trials but excluded cross-over trials.
We used standard Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth methods for data collection and analysis. Two to four review authors independently selected the studies, assessed the risk of bias, extracted data for analysis and checked accuracy. Where necessary, we contacted the study authors for clarification.
Forty-one RCTs involving 3005 mothers and 3006 infants from at least 17 countries met the inclusion criteria. Studies were conducted either in hospitals immediately postpartum or in the community. There was considerable variation in mothers, particularly in parity and whether or not they had lactation insufficiency. Infants' ages at commencement of the studies ranged from newborn to 6 months. The overall certainty of evidence was low to very low because of high risk of biases (mainly due to lack of blinding), substantial clinical and statistical heterogeneity, and imprecision of measurements. Pharmacological galactagogues Nine studies compared a pharmacological galactagogue (domperidone, metoclopramide, sulpiride, thyrotropin-releasing hormone) with placebo or no treatment. The primary outcome of proportion of mothers who continued breastfeeding at 3, 4 and 6 months was not reported. Only one study (metoclopramide) reported on the outcome of infant weight, finding little or no difference (mean difference (MD) 23.0 grams, 95% confidence interval (CI) -47.71 to 93.71; 1 study, 20 participants; low-certainty evidence). Three studies (metoclopramide, domperidone, sulpiride) reported on milk volume, finding pharmacological galactagogues may increase milk volume (MD 63.82 mL, 95% CI 25.91 to 101.72; I² = 34%; 3 studies, 151 participants; low-certainty evidence). Subgroup analysis indicates there may be increased milk volume with each drug, but with varying CIs. There was limited reporting of adverse effects, none of which could be meta-analysed. Where reported, they were limited to minor complaints, such as tiredness, nausea, headache and dry mouth (very low-certainty evidence). No adverse effects were reported for infants. Natural galactagogues Twenty-seven studies compared natural oral galactagogues (banana flower, fennel, fenugreek, ginger, ixbut, levant cotton, moringa, palm dates, pork knuckle, shatavari, silymarin, torbangun leaves or other natural mixtures) with placebo or no treatment. One study (Mother's Milk Tea) reported breastfeeding rates at six months with a concluding statement of "no significant difference" (no data and no measure of significance provided, 60 participants, very low-certainty evidence). Three studies (fennel, fenugreek, moringa, mixed botanical tea) reported infant weight but could not be meta-analysed due to substantial clinical and statistical heterogeneity (I
= 60%, 275 participants, very low-certainty evidence). Subgroup analysis shows we are very uncertain whether fennel or fenugreek improves infant weight, whereas moringa and mixed botanical tea may increase infant weight compared to placebo. Thirteen studies (Bu Xue Sheng Ru, Chanbao, Cui Ru, banana flower, fenugreek, ginger, moringa, fenugreek, ginger and turmeric mix, ixbut, mixed botanical tea, Sheng Ru He Ji, silymarin, Xian Tong Ru, palm dates; 962 participants) reported on milk volume, but meta-analysis was not possible due to substantial heterogeneity (I
= 99%). The subgroup analysis for each intervention suggested either benefit or little or no difference (very low-certainty evidence). There was limited reporting of adverse effects, none of which could be meta-analysed. Where reported, they were limited to minor complaints such as mothers with urine that smelled like maple syrup and urticaria in infants (very low-certainty evidence). Galactagogue versus galactagogue Eight studies (Chanbao; Bue Xue Sheng Ru, domperidone, moringa, fenugreek, palm dates, torbangun, moloco, Mu Er Wu You, Kun Yuan Tong Ru) compared one oral galactagogue with another. We were unable to perform meta-analysis because there was only one small study for each match-up, so we do not know if one galactagogue is better than another for any outcome.
Due to extremely limited, very low certainty evidence, we do not know whether galactagogues have any effect on proportion of mothers who continued breastfeeding at 3, 4 and 6 months. There is low-certainty evidence that pharmacological galactagogues may increase milk volume. There is some evidence from subgroup analyses that natural galactagogues may benefit infant weight and milk volume in mothers with healthy, term infants, but due to substantial heterogeneity of the studies, imprecision of measurements and incomplete reporting, we are very uncertain about the magnitude of the effect. We are also uncertain if one galactagogue performs better than another. With limited data on adverse effects, we are uncertain if there are any concerning adverse effects with any particular galactagogue; those reported were minor complaints. High-quality RCTs on the efficacy and safety of galactagogues are urgently needed. A set of core outcomes to standardise infant weight and milk volume measurement is also needed, as well as a strong basis for the dose and dosage form used.
PDF
