Limits...
Utility of gastric lavage in vigorous neonates delivered with meconium stained liquor: a randomized controlled trial.

Garg J, Masand R, Tomar BS - Int J Pediatr (2014)

Bottom Line: Results.There was no evidence of secondary respiratory distress in either group.Conclusions.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Department of Pediatrics, National Institute of Medical Sciences, 4 Govind Marg, NIMS City Center, Jaipur, Rajasthan 302004, India.

ABSTRACT
Objective. To determine the incidence of feed intolerance in vigorous babies with meconium stained liquor (MSL) who received prophylactic gastric lavage as compared to those who were not subjected to this procedure. Design. Randomized controlled trial. Setting. Tertiary care teaching hospital. Participants/Intervention. 330 vigorous babies delivered with MSL and satisfying the predefined inclusion criteria were randomized either to receive gastric lavage (group A, n = 165) or to not receive gastric lavage (group B, n = 153). Clinical monitoring was subsequently performed and recorded in prestructured proforma. Results. There was no significant statistical difference (P > 0.05) in incidence of feed intolerance in "lavage" and "no lavage" groups. Secondary Outcome. There was no evidence of secondary respiratory distress in either group. None of the patients in the lavage group exhibited adverse effects owing to the procedure. Conclusions. There is no role of prophylactic gastric lavage in neonates born with MSL.

No MeSH data available.


Related in: MedlinePlus

Study flow chart. MSL: meconium stained liquor; group A: the “gastric lavage” group; group B: the “no gastric lavage” group; GA: gestational age; <wt/GA: birth weight ≦1800 grams and gestational age ≦34 weeks; req. CPR: requiring cardiopulmonary resuscitation; RD: respiratory distress; NNS: neonatal sepsis.
© Copyright Policy - open-access
Related In: Results  -  Collection


getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4020371&req=5

fig1: Study flow chart. MSL: meconium stained liquor; group A: the “gastric lavage” group; group B: the “no gastric lavage” group; GA: gestational age; <wt/GA: birth weight ≦1800 grams and gestational age ≦34 weeks; req. CPR: requiring cardiopulmonary resuscitation; RD: respiratory distress; NNS: neonatal sepsis.

Mentions: After initial care and stabilization, neonates were randomized either to receive gastric lavage (group A) or to not receive lavage (group B). Randomization was done using small square slips with computer generated numbers from 1 to 330. These prenumbered slips were folded and shuffled in a box and opened for each neonate to decide the intervention. Neonates with odd-numbered slips were allotted group A, while withdrawal of even-numbered slips rendered the study subjects in group B. A sample size of 165 in each group with an α error of 5% and 90% power in a two sided test was required. Blinding of intervention/outcome was not done; that is, the doctors and nursery staff were aware of the intervention (Figure 1).


Utility of gastric lavage in vigorous neonates delivered with meconium stained liquor: a randomized controlled trial.

Garg J, Masand R, Tomar BS - Int J Pediatr (2014)

Study flow chart. MSL: meconium stained liquor; group A: the “gastric lavage” group; group B: the “no gastric lavage” group; GA: gestational age; <wt/GA: birth weight ≦1800 grams and gestational age ≦34 weeks; req. CPR: requiring cardiopulmonary resuscitation; RD: respiratory distress; NNS: neonatal sepsis.
© Copyright Policy - open-access
Related In: Results  -  Collection

Show All Figures
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4020371&req=5

fig1: Study flow chart. MSL: meconium stained liquor; group A: the “gastric lavage” group; group B: the “no gastric lavage” group; GA: gestational age; <wt/GA: birth weight ≦1800 grams and gestational age ≦34 weeks; req. CPR: requiring cardiopulmonary resuscitation; RD: respiratory distress; NNS: neonatal sepsis.
Mentions: After initial care and stabilization, neonates were randomized either to receive gastric lavage (group A) or to not receive lavage (group B). Randomization was done using small square slips with computer generated numbers from 1 to 330. These prenumbered slips were folded and shuffled in a box and opened for each neonate to decide the intervention. Neonates with odd-numbered slips were allotted group A, while withdrawal of even-numbered slips rendered the study subjects in group B. A sample size of 165 in each group with an α error of 5% and 90% power in a two sided test was required. Blinding of intervention/outcome was not done; that is, the doctors and nursery staff were aware of the intervention (Figure 1).

Bottom Line: Results.There was no evidence of secondary respiratory distress in either group.Conclusions.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Department of Pediatrics, National Institute of Medical Sciences, 4 Govind Marg, NIMS City Center, Jaipur, Rajasthan 302004, India.

ABSTRACT
Objective. To determine the incidence of feed intolerance in vigorous babies with meconium stained liquor (MSL) who received prophylactic gastric lavage as compared to those who were not subjected to this procedure. Design. Randomized controlled trial. Setting. Tertiary care teaching hospital. Participants/Intervention. 330 vigorous babies delivered with MSL and satisfying the predefined inclusion criteria were randomized either to receive gastric lavage (group A, n = 165) or to not receive gastric lavage (group B, n = 153). Clinical monitoring was subsequently performed and recorded in prestructured proforma. Results. There was no significant statistical difference (P > 0.05) in incidence of feed intolerance in "lavage" and "no lavage" groups. Secondary Outcome. There was no evidence of secondary respiratory distress in either group. None of the patients in the lavage group exhibited adverse effects owing to the procedure. Conclusions. There is no role of prophylactic gastric lavage in neonates born with MSL.

No MeSH data available.


Related in: MedlinePlus