Factors affecting early neurobehavioral and sleep outcomes in preterm infants

Cycled light in the intensive care unit for preterm and low birth weight infants

BACKGROUND

Preterm and low birth weight infants are at an early stage of development, and do not receive adequate maternal circadian signals. They are often cared for over prolonged periods of hospitalisation in neonatal intensive care units (NICU), where environmental circadian stimuli are lacking. Exposure to artificial light-dark cycles may stimulate the development of the circadian system and improve clinical outcomes. However, it remains uncertain whether cycled light (CL) is preferable to near darkness (ND) or continuous bright light (CBL) in fostering development and maturation, and reducing adverse neonatal health outcomes. This is an update of an earlier Cochrane review, last published in 2016.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the benefits and harms of CL in preterm and low birth weight infants compared to ND or CBL.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, PubMed, Embase, and two trial registries to September 2023. We also checked reference lists, and searched for retractions of included studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) or quasi-RCTs in preterm infants (< 37 weeks' postmenstrual age (PMA)), or those with a low birth weight (< 2500 g), admitted and cared for in an NICU or a step-down unit, comparing CL with ND or CBL.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used the standard review methods of the Cochrane Neonatal Review Group to assess the methodological quality of studies. We used the fixed-effect model with risk ratio (RR) and mean difference (MD), with their 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for dichotomous data. Our primary outcomes were (1) growth at three and six months' corrected age, (2) major neurodevelopmental disability, and (3) adverse effects. Our secondary outcomes were (4) retinopathy of prematurity, (5) duration of initial hospitalisation, (6) duration of oxygen treatment, and (7) parent satisfaction. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of evidence for each outcome.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 20 studies with 1633 infants. Data for meta-analysis were available for 11 studies (1126 infants). One study with multiple arms was included in both comparisons. We rated the overall risk of bias at the study level as high or unclear for all 20 studies that had one or several unclear or high risk of bias judgements across the domains. Cycled light versus dimmed light or near darkness (10 studies) The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of cycled light compared to dimmed light (reduction of illumination levels) or near darkness on weight at three months (MD 24.79, 95% CI -262.33 to 311.91; 2 studies, 187 infants; very low-certainty evidence), and weight at six months (MD 202, 95% CI -109.68 to 513.68; 1 study, 147 infants; very low-certainty evidence). The studies did not report any data for major neurodevelopmental disability. No data are available for adverse effects; it is uncertain if the absence of adverse effects is because none occurred, or because they were not identified and recorded. The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of cycled light compared to dimmed light or near darkness on the likelihood of developing retinopathy of prematurity of any stage (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.03; 3 studies, 307 infants; very low-certainty evidence), and severe retinopathy of prematurity of stage 3 or higher (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.59 to 1.61; 4 studies, 454 infants; very low-certainty evidence). Cycled light compared to dimmed light or near darkness may have little to no effect on the duration of initial hospitalisation (MD -3.04, 95% CI -7.86 to 1.78; 5 studies, 550 infants; very low-certainty evidence), but the evidence is very uncertain. Cycled light versus continuous bright light (11 studies) No data are available on the following primary outcomes, as no studies reported them: growth at three and six months' corrected age, major neurodevelopmental disability, and adverse effects. It is uncertain if the absence of adverse effects is because none occurred or because they were not identified and recorded. No data are available on retinopathy of prematurity, as no studies reported it. Cycled light compared to continuous bright light may reduce the duration of initial hospitalisation, but the evidence is very uncertain (MD -9.86, 95% CI -10.09 to -9.63; 5 studies, 499 infants; very low-certainty evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Despite identifying 20 studies, we remain uncertain about the effect of CL compared to ND or CBL on all outcomes of interest in this review. In addition, a few critical outcomes were not reported by any of the included studies. The evidence remains uncertain about whether CL is the right choice in the NICU. The physician should always weigh the benefits and risks, based on the effects of the different options in the specific setting.

What do we know about the sleep effects of caffeine used to treat apnoea of prematurity? A systematic review of the literature

OBJECTIVE

Scientific scrutiny has proved the safety and benefits of caffeine to treat apnoea of prematurity (AOP). However, there is no consensus on the effects of this treatment on sleep, especially considering the key role of adenosine and early brain development for sleep maturation. We systematically reviewed studies with sleep as a primary and/or secondary outcome or any mention of sleep parameters in the context of caffeine treatment for AOP.

METHODS

We performed a systematic search of PubMed, Web of Science and the Virtual Health Library from inception to 7 September 2022 to identify studies investigating the short- and long-term effects of caffeine to treat AOP on sleep parameters. We used the PIC strategy considering preterm infants as the Population, caffeine for apnoea as the Intervention and no or other intervention other than caffeine as the Comparison. We registered the protocol on PROSPERO (CRD42021282536).

RESULTS

Of 4019 studies, we deemed 20, including randomised controlled trials and follow-up and observational studies, to be eligible for our systematic review. The analysed sleep parameters, the evaluation phase and the instruments for sleep assessment varied considerably among the studies. The main findings can be summarised as follows: (i) most of the eligible studies in this systematic review indicate that caffeine used to treat AOP seems to have no effect on key sleep parameters and (ii) the effects on sleep when caffeine is administered earlier, at higher doses or for longer periods than the most common protocol have not been investigated. There is a possible correlation between the caffeine concentration and period of exposure and negative sleep quality, but the sleep assessment protocols used in the included studies did not have high-quality standards and could not provide good evidence.

CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS

Sleep quality is an important determinant of health, and better investments in research with adequate sleep assessment tools are necessary to guarantee the ideal management of children who were born preterm.

Comparison of the neurobehavioural profile of early-preterm infants against term and late-preterm infants using the Hammersmith neonatal neurological examination

AIM

To compare the neurobehavioural profile of early-preterm infants (<32 weeks gestation) at term-corrected age (39⁺⁰ -41⁺⁶ weeks) versus late-preterm and full-term infants at similar term gestational ages.

METHODS

Early-preterm infants were assessed neurologically at term-corrected age using the Hammersmith neonatal neurological examination. The raw scores of the 34 Hammersmith neonatal neurological examination items were converted to optimality scores. Pairwise comparison of neurobehavioural patterns between early-preterm infants at term-corrected age versus late-preterm and full-term infants at similar gestational ages were made using independent sample t tests. Differences in optimality scores between the three groups were evaluated using one-way analysis of variance.

RESULTS

Sixty-eight early-preterm infants assessed at term-corrected age were compared against 75 late-preterm infants and 133 full-term infants. Mean total optimality scores (±standard deviation) of early-preterm, late-preterm and full-term infants at term-corrected age were 27.68 (±3.97), 29.09 (±2.45) and 31.58 (±1.39), respectively (P < 0.001). The mean optimality score of early-preterm infants was significantly lower when compared pairwise with late-preterm infants and full-term infants with mean difference of -1.42 (P = 0.013) and -3.91 (P < 0.001), respectively.

CONCLUSION

The neurobehavioural profile of early-preterm infants lags significantly behind those of late-preterm and full-term infants at term-corrected age. This study also provides reference raw and optimality scores for all items in the Hammersmith neonatal neurological examination for early-preterm infants in a predominantly Asian population.

A scoping review of behavioral sleep stage classification methods for preterm infants

BACKGROUND

Sleep is paramount for optimal brain development in infants admitted to the neonatal intensive care unit. Besides (minimally) invasive technical approaches to study sleep in infants, there is currently a large variety of behavioral sleep stage classification methods (BSSCs) that can be used to identify sleep stages in preterm infants born <37 weeks gestational age. However, they operate different criteria to define sleep stages, which limits the comparability and reproducibility of research on preterm sleep. This scoping review aims to: 1) identify and elaborate on existing neonatal BSSCs used for preterm infants, 2) examine the reliability and validity of these BSSCs, and 3) identify which criteria are most used for different ages, ranging from 23 to 37 weeks postmenstrual age at observation.

METHODS

To map the existing BSSCs, PubMed, EMBASE and Cochrane were searched for studies using a BSSC to identify sleep stages in preterm infants.

RESULTS

In total, 36 BSSCs were identified with on average five item categories assessed per BSSC, most frequently: eyes, body movements, facial movements, sounds, and respiratory pattern. Furthermore, validity and reliability of the BSSCs were tested in less than half of the included studies. Finally, BSSCs were used in infants of all ages, regardless the age for which the BSSC was originally developed.

CONCLUSIONS

Items used for scoring in the different BSSCs were relatively consistent. The age ranges, reliability, and validity of the BSSCs were not consistently reported in most studies. Either validation studies of existing BSSCs or new BSSCs are necessary to improve the comparability and reproducibility of previous and future preterm behavioral sleep studies.

Cycled light in the intensive care unit for preterm and low birth weight infants

BACKGROUND

Potential benefits and harms of different lighting in neonatal units have not been quantified.

OBJECTIVES

• To determine effectiveness and safety of cycled light (CL) (approximately 12 hours of light on and 12 hours of light off) for growth in preterm infants at three and six months' corrected age (CA).• In separate analyses, to compare effects of CL with those of irregularly dimmed light (DL) or near darkness (ND), and effects of CL with those of continuous bright light (CBL), on growth in preterm infants at three and six months' CA.• To assess, in subgroup analyses, the effectiveness and safety of CL (vs control interventions (DL, ND and CBL)) introduced at different postmenstrual ages (PMAs) - before 32 weeks', at 32 weeks' and from 36 weeks' PMA - and to compare effectiveness and safety of CL for small for gestational age (GA) infants versus appropriately grown infants.

SEARCH METHODS

We used the standard search strategy of the Cochrane Neonatal Review Group to search the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2016, Issue 12), MEDLINE via PubMed (1966 to January 2016), Embase (1980 to January 2016) and the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL; 1982 to January 2016). We searched clinical trials databases, conference proceedings and reference lists of retrieved articles for randomised controlled trials and quasi-randomised trials.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised or quasi-randomised trials of CL versus ND or CBL in preterm and low birth weight infants.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We performed data collection and analyses according to the methods of the Cochrane Neonatal Review Group. We used the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach to assess the quality of evidence.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified one additional study enrolling 38 participants for inclusion in this update, for a total of nine studies reporting on 544 infants. In general, the quality of the studies was low, mainly owing to lack of blinding and small sample sizes.Six studies enrolling 424 infants compared CL versus ND. No study reported on weight at three or six months. One study (n = 40) found no statistically significant difference in weight at four months between CL and ND groups. In another study (n = 62), the ratio of day-night activity before discharge favoured the CL group (mean difference (MD) 0.18, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.17 to 0.19), indicating 18% more activity during the day than during the night in the CL group compared with the ND group. Two studies (n = 189) reported on retinopathy of prematurity (stage ≥ 3) and reported no statistically significant differences between CL and ND groups (typical risk ratio (RR) 0.53, 95% CI 0.25 to 1.11, I(2) = 0%; typical risk difference (RD) -0.09, 95% CI -0.19 to 0.01, I(2) = 0%). Two studies (n = 77) reported length of hospital stay (days) and noted a significant reduction in length of stay between CL and ND groups favouring the CL group (weighted mean difference (WMD) -13 days, 95% CI -23 to -2, I(2) = 0%; no heterogeneity). The quality of the evidence according to GRADE was low for this outcome. One study (n = 37) reported less crying at 11 weeks' corrected age (CA) in the CL group compared with the ND group (MD -0.57 hours/24 h, 95% CI -1.09 to -0.05). Tests for heterogeneity were not applicable.Three studies enrolling 120 infants compared CL versus CBL. Two studies (n = 79) reported significantly shorter length of stay in the CL group compared with the CBL group (WMD -16.5 days, 95% CI -26.2 to -6.8, I(2) = 0%; no heterogeneity). The quality of the evidence according to GRADE was low for this outcome. One study (n = 41) reported higher mean weight at three months' CA among infants cared for in the CL nursery (P value < 0.02) and a lower mean number of hours spent awake in 24 hours at three months of age (P value < 0.005). Data could not be entered into RevMan or GRADE. One study (n = 41) reported shorter time on the ventilator in the CL compared with the CBL group (MD -18.2 days, 95% CI -31.40 to -5.0). One study (n = 41) reported a shorter time to first oral feeding in the CL group (MD -6.8 days, 95% CI -13.29 to -0.31). We identified no safety issues.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Trials assessing the effects of CL have enrolled 544 infants. No study reported on our primary outcome of weight at three or six months. Results from one additional study strengthen our findings that CL versus CBL shortens length of stay, as does CL versus ND. The quality of the evidence on both comparisons for this outcome according to GRADE was low. Future research should focus on comparing CL versus ND.

Sleep deprivation, pain and prematurity: a review study

The aim was to describe current reports in the scientific literature on sleep in the intensive care environment and sleep deprivation associated with painful experiences in premature infant. A systematic search was conducted for studies on sleep, pain, premature birth and care of the newborn. Web of Knowledge, MEDLINE, LILACS, Cochrane Library, PubMed, EMBASE, Scopus, VHL and SciELO databases were consulted. The association between sleep deprivation and pain generates effects that are observed in the brain and the behavioral and physiological activity of preterm infants. Polysomnography in intensive care units and pain management in neonates allow comparison with the first year of life and term infants. We have found few references and evidence that neonatal care programs can influence sleep development and reduce the negative impact of the environment. This evidence is discussed from the perspective of how hospital intervention can improve the development of premature infants.

Cycled light in the intensive care unit for preterm and low birth weight infants

BACKGROUND

The potential benefits and harms of different lighting in neonatal units have not been quantified.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the effectiveness of cycled lighting (CL) (approximately 12 hours of light on and 12 hours of light off) with irregularly dimmed light (DL) or near darkness (ND) and with continuous bright light (CBL) on growth in preterm infants at three and six months of age.

SEARCH METHODS

We conducted electronic searches of the literature (in January 2013) of the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Issue 12, 2012 (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL and abstracts from Pediatric Academic Societies' annual meetings. We searched Controlled-trials.com and Clinicaltrials.gov for ongoing trials and abstracts from the Pediatric Academic Societies (PAS) Annual Meetings (2000 to 2013) using the Abstracts2view website on 10 May 2013.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomized or quasi-randomised trials of CL versus ND or CBL in preterm and low birth weight infants.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We performed data collection and analyses according to the methods of the Cochrane Neonatal Review Group.

MAIN RESULTS

Six studies enrolling 424 infants compared CL versus ND (including one additional trial identified in this update that enrolled 37 infants). No study reported on weight at three or six months. In one study (n = 40), there was no statistically significant difference in weight at four months between the CL and ND groups. In another study (n = 62), the ratio of day-night activity prior to discharge favoured the CL group (mean difference (MD) 0.18, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.17 to 0.19) indicating 18% more activity during the day than during the night in the CL group compared with the ND group. Two studies (n = 189) reported on retinopathy of prematurity (stage ≥ 3). There was no statistically significant difference between the CL and ND groups (typical risk ratio (RR) 0.53, 95% CI 0.25 to 1.11, I(2) = 0%; typical risk difference (RD) -0.09, 95% CI -0.19 to 0.01, I(2) = 0%). Two studies (n = 77) reported on length of hospital stay (days). There was a significant reduction in the length of stay between the CL and the ND groups favouring the CL group (MD -13 days, 95% CI -2 to -23). One study (n = 37) reported on less crying at 11 weeks' corrected age (CA) in the CL group compared with the ND group (MD -0.57 hours/24 hours, 95% CI -1.09 to -0.05).There was no heterogeneity for this outcome (I(2) = 0%).Two studies enrolling 82 infants compared CL versus CBL. One study (n = 41) reported higher mean weight at three months' CA in infants cared for in the CL nursery (P value < 0.02) and lower mean number of hours spent awake in 24 hours at three months of age (P value < 0.005). One study (n = 41) reported shorter time on ventilator in the CL compared with the CBL group (MD -18.2 days, 95% CI -31.40 to -5.0). One study (n = 41) reported a shorter time to first oral feeding in the CL group (MD -6.8 days, 95% CI -13.29 to -0.31).For many outcomes, the trends favoured CL versus ND as well as CL versus CBL.We identified no safety issues.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Trials assessing the effect of CL have enrolled 506 infants. Trends for many outcomes favoured CL compared with ND and CL compared with CBL. The studies may have lacked significance due to a lack of statistical power. Future research should focus on comparing CL to ND.

Cycled light in the intensive care unit for preterm and low birth weight infants

BACKGROUND

The potential benefits and harms of different lighting in neonatal units have not been quantified.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the effectiveness of cycled lighting (CL) (approximately 12 hours of light on and 12 hours of light off) with irregularly dimmed light or near darkness (ND) and with continuous bright light (CBL) on growth in preterm infants at three and six months of age.

SEARCH STRATEGY

Electronic searches of the literature were conducted (in May 2010) of the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library), MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL and abstracts from Pediatric Academic Societies' annual meetings.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised or quasi-randomised trials of CL versus ND or CBL in preterm and low birth weight infants.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Data collection and analyses were performed according to the methods of the Cochrane Neonatal Review Group.

MAIN RESULTS

Five studies enrolling 387 infants compared CL to ND. No study reported on weight at three or six months. In one study (n = 40) there was no statistically significant difference in weight at four months between the CL and the ND groups. In another study (n = 62) the ratio of day-night activity prior to discharge favoured the CL group (mean difference 0.18, 95% CI 0.17 to 0.19) indicating 18% more activity during day than night in the CL group compared to the ND group. Two studies (n = 189) reported on retinopathy of prematurity (stage ≥ 3). There was no statistically significant difference between the CL and ND groups (typical RR 0.53, 95% CI 0.25 to 1.11, I(2) = 0%; typical RD -0.09, 95% CI -0.19 to 0.01, I(2) = 0%).Two studies enrolling 82 infants compared CL to CBL. One study (n = 41) reported higher mean weight at three months corrected age in infants cared for in the CL nursery (P < 0.02) and lower mean number of hours spent awake in 24 hours at three months (P < 0.005). In one study (n = 41) days on a ventilator were reduced in the CL group (mean difference -18, 95% CI -31 to -5 days).For many outcomes the trends favoured CL versus ND as well as CL versus CBL.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Trials assessing the effect of CL have enrolled 469 infants. Trends for many outcomes favoured cycled light (CL) compared to near darkness (ND) and CL compared to continuous bright light (CBL) The studies may have lacked significance due to a lack of statistical power. Future research should focus on comparing CL to ND.