Incidence of infection for preterm twins cared for in cobedding in the neonatal intensive-care unit

Integrative Review of Cobedding of Infant Twins

OBJECTIVE

To synthesize the evidence on the benefits and risks of cobedding for infant twins and to assess the perceptions and practices of parents and health care workers regarding this practice.

DATA SOURCES

We searched the following databases for articles published between 1997 and 2022: CINAHL, Cochrane, Ovid MEDLINE, PubMed, Scopus, and Google Scholar.

STUDY SELECTION

We included full-text articles published in English in which the authors addressed twin cobedding in hospital or home settings. We reviewed the abstracts of 106 articles and retained 54 for full-text review. Of these, 18 met eligibility criteria and were included in the review.

DATA EXTRACTION

We extracted the following data: author(s), year of publication, setting, purpose, study design, sample characteristics, methodologic details, outcomes and findings, and limitations. We appraised the quality of each study.

DATA SYNTHESIS

In the included articles, researchers identified no differences in apnea, heart rate, or oxygen saturation between cobedded and separately bedded infants. Compared to separately bedded infants, cobedded infants had greater weight gain and synchronization of sleep-wake states. Researchers found benefits for procedural pain relief and recovery after heel lance among cobedded infants. Researchers report that many parents are choosing to cobed their twins, but we found limited qualitative data exploring parents' perceptions or practices. In the included articles, nurses had positive perceptions of twin cobedding. Overall, the quality of evidence was low because of inconsistencies in study methods and small sample sizes that resulted in imprecise results.

CONCLUSION

We found potential benefits and no evidence of harm related to cobedding of twin infants. However, the evidence was insufficient to provide recommendations for practice, and additional research is warranted.

Co-bedding in neonatal nursery for promoting growth and neurodevelopment in stable preterm twins

BACKGROUND

The increased birth rate of twins during recent decades and the improved prognosis of preterm infants have resulted in the need to explore measures that could optimize their growth and neurodevelopmental outcomes. It has been postulated that co-bedding simulates twins' intrauterine experiences in which co-regulatory behaviors between them are observed. These behaviors are proposed to benefit twins by reducing their stress, which may promote growth and development. However, in practice, uncertainty surrounds the benefit-risk profile of co-bedding.

OBJECTIVES

We aimed to assess the effectiveness of co-bedding compared with separate (individual) care for stable preterm twins in the neonatal nursery in promoting growth and neurodevelopment and reducing short- and long-term morbidities, and to determine whether co-bedding is associated with significant adverse effects.As secondary objectives, we sought to evaluate effects of co-bedding via the following subgroup analyses: twin pairs with different weight ranges (very low birth weight [VLBW] < 1500 grams vs non-VLBW), twins with versus without significant growth discordance at birth, preterm versus borderline preterm twins, twins co-bedded in incubator versus cot at study entry, and twins randomized by twin pair versus neonatal unit.

SEARCH METHODS

We used the standard search strategy of the Cochrane Neonatal Review Group (CNRG). We used keywords and medical subject headings (MeSH) to search the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2016, Issue 2), MEDLINE (via PubMed), EMBASE (hosted by EBSCOHOST), the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), and references cited in our short-listed articles, up to February 29, 2016.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomized controlled trials with randomization by twin pair and/or by neonatal unit. We excluded cross-over studies.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We extracted data using standard methods of the CNRG. Two review authors independently assessed the relevance and risk of bias of retrieved records. We contacted the authors of included studies to request important information missing from their published papers. We expressed our results using risk ratios (RRs) and mean differences (MDs) when appropriate, along with 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs). We adjusted the unit of analysis from individual infants to twin pairs by averaging measurements for each twin pair (continuous outcomes) or by counting outcomes as positive if developed by either twin (dichotomous outcomes).

MAIN RESULTS

Six studies met the inclusion criteria; however, only five studies provided data for analysis. Four of the six included studies were small and had significant limitations in design. As each study reported outcomes differently, data for most outcomes were effectively contributed by a single study. Study authors reported no differences between co-bedded twins and twins receiving separate care in terms of rate of weight gain (MD 0.20 grams/kg/d, 95% CI -1.60 to 2.00; one study; 18 pairs of twins; evidence of low quality); apnea, bradycardia, and desaturation (A/B/D) episodes (RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.18 to 4.05; one study; 62 pairs of twins; evidence of low quality); episodes in co-regulated states (MD 0.96, 95% CI -3.44 to 5.36; one study; three pairs of twins; evidence of very low quality); suspected or proven infection (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.30 to 2.31; three studies; 65 pairs of twins; evidence of very low quality); length of hospital stay (MD -4.90 days, 95% CI -35.23 to 25.43; one study; three pairs of twins; evidence of very low quality); and parental satisfaction measured on a scale of 0 to 55 (MD -0.38, 95% CI -4.49 to 3.73; one study; nine pairs of twins; evidence of moderate quality). Although co-bedded twins appeared to have lower pain scores 30 seconds after heel lance on a scale of 0 to 21 (MD -0.96, 95% CI -1.68 to -0.23; two studies; 117 pairs of twins; I(2) = 75%; evidence of low quality), they had higher pain scores 90 seconds after the procedure (MD 1.00, 95% CI 0.14 to 1.86; one study; 62 pairs of twins). Substantial heterogeneity in the outcome of infant pain response after heel prick at 30 seconds post procedure and conflicting results at 30 and 90 seconds post procedure precluded clear conclusions.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Evidence on the benefits and harms of co-bedding for stable preterm twins was insufficient to permit recommendations for practice. Future studies must be adequately powered to detect clinically important differences in growth and neurodevelopment. Researchers should assess harms such as infection, along with medication errors and caregiver satisfaction.

Effect of cobedding twins on coregulation, infant state, and twin safety

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the efficacy of cobedding on twin coregulation and twin safety.

DESIGN

Randomized controlled trial (RCT).

SETTING

Two university affiliated Level III neonatal intensive care units (NICUs).

PARTICIPANTS

One hundred and seventeen sets (N = 234) of stable preterm twins (<37 weeks gestational age at birth) admitted to the NICU.

METHODS

Sets of twins were randomly assigned to be cared for in a single cot (cobedded) or in separate cots (standard care). State response was obtained from videotaped and physiologic data measured and recorded for three, 3-hour sessions over a one-week study period. Tapes were coded for infant state by an assessor blind to the purpose of the study.

RESULTS

Twins who were cobedded spent more time in the same state (p < .01), less time in opposite states (p < .01), were more often in quiet sleep (p < .01) and cried less (p < .01) than twins who were cared for in separate cots. There was no difference in physiological parameters between groups (p = .85). There was no difference in patient safety between groups (incidence of sepsis, p = .95), incidence of caregiver error (p = .31), and incidence of apnea (p = .70).

CONCLUSIONS

Cobedding promotes self-regulation and sleep and decreases crying without apparent increased risk.

Co-bedding between preterm twins attenuates stress response after heel lance: results of a randomized trial

OBJECTIVE

To examine the effect of co-bedding between preterm twins on stress response after heel lance.

METHODS

Using a multisite randomized controlled trial design, stable preterm twins (67 sets, N=134 infants) between 28 and 36 completed weeks' gestational age, stratified by gestational age (≤ and >32 weeks) and site, were randomly assigned to a co-bedding group, cared for continuously in the same incubator or crib or a standard care group, cared for in a separate incubator or crib, and underwent a medically indicated heel lance after at least 24 hours and no greater than 10 days of group allocation. The reported outcome was cortisol from saliva samples from 89 twins (n=49 co-bedding, n=40 standard care) collected immediately before the heel lance (baseline levels) and 113 twins (n=58 co-bedding, n=55 standard care) collected 20 minutes after heel lance (stress levels) as an index of stress response.

RESULTS

No group differences were noted in baseline salivary cortisol levels: 0.36 μg/dL (SD 0.25) in the co-bedding group and 0.43 μg/dL (SD 0.50) in the standard care group. Twenty minutes after lance, levels were significantly lower in the co-bedding group, 0.28 μg/dL (SD 0.25) versus 0.50 μg/dL (SD 0.73) in the standard group (P=0.04). Similarly, the mean of paired changes in salivary cortisol from baseline was lower in the co-bedding group (-0.06 μg/dL) compared with the standard care group (0.14 μg/dL, P<0.05).

DISCUSSION

Co-bedding attenuates the stress response of preterm twins undergoing heel lance.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT009176.

Cobedding of twin premature infants: calming effects on pain responses

BACKGROUND

The purpose of this trial was to determine whether cobedding of preterm twins has analgesic effects during heel lancing or not.

METHODS

One hundred premature twins (50 sets) born between 26 weeks' and 34 weeks' gestation undergoing heel blood sampling were randomly assigned into two groups: the cobedding group (receiving care in the same incubator) and the standard care group (receiving care in separate incubators). Pain was assessed using the premature infant pain profile score. Duration of crying was measured after heel blood sampling, and salivary cortisol was measured prior to and after heel blood sampling.

RESULTS

Infants in the standard care group cried for a longer time during heel lancing than those in the cobedding group (42.6 ± 19.8 seconds vs. 36.4 ± 21.7 seconds, p = 0.03). The mean premature infant pain profile score after heel lancing was significantly higher in the standard care group (9.8 ± 2.6 vs. 8.06 ± 2.8, p = 0.002). The mean salivary cortisol after heel lancing was also significantly higher in the standard care group (24.3 ± 7.4 nmol/L vs. 20.8 ± 7.4 nmol/L, p = 0.02). No significant adverse effects were seen with cobedding.

CONCLUSION

Cobedding is a comforting measure for twin premature infants during heel lancing, which can be performed without any significant adverse effects.

Co-bedding in neonatal nursery for promoting growth and neurodevelopment in stable preterm twins

BACKGROUND

With the increased birth rate of twins during the recent decades and improved prognosis of preterm infants, there is a need to explore measures that could optimise their growth and neurodevelopmental outcomes. It has been postulated that co-bedding simulates the twins' intrauterine experiences in which co-regulatory behaviours between the twins are observed. These behaviours are proposed to benefit the twins by reducing their stress, which may promote growth and development. However, uncertainties exist on the benefit-risk profile of co-bedding in practice.

OBJECTIVES

We aimed to assess the effects of co-bedding on growth, and other clinically relevant physiological and neurodevelopmental outcomes for stable preterm twins.

SEARCH METHODS

We used the standard search strategy of the Cochrane Neonatal Review Group (CNRG). We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (The Cochrane Library 2012, Issue 7), MEDLINE (via PubMed), EMBASE (hosted by EBCHOST), CINAHL and references cited in our shortlisted articles using keywords and MesH headings, up to July 2012.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials with randomisation either at the level of each twin pair and/or at the level of neonatal unit. We excluded cross-over studies.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We extracted data using the standard methods of the CNRG. Two review authors independently assessed the relevance and risk of bias of the retrieved records. We contacted the authors of the included studies if important information was missing from their published papers. We expressed our results using risk ratio (RR) and mean difference (MD) where appropriate with their 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We adjusted the unit of analysis from individual infants to twin pairs by averaging the measurement for each twin pair (continuous outcome) or by counting the outcome as positive if any of the twins developed the outcome (dichotomous outcome).

MAIN RESULTS

Five studies met the inclusion criteria; however, data were only available for analysis in four studies. Four of the five included studies were small and had significant limitations in design. As each study reported the outcomes differently, data for most of the outcomes were effectively contributed by a single study. There were no differences between co-bedded twins and twins that received separate care in the rate of weight gain (MD 0.20 grams/kg/day, 95% CI: -1.60 to 2.00), apnoea, bradycardia and desaturation (A/B/D) episodes (RR: 0.85, 95% CI: 0.18 to 4.05; 1 study), length of hospital stay (MD -4.90 days, 95% CI: -35.23 to 25.43) and infection rates (typical RR: 0.84, 95% CI: 0.30 to 2.31; 3 studies). There were also no differences in parental perceptions of care. Co-bedded twins appeared to spend more time crying, but they also seemed to spend more time in quiet sleep. There was low or very low quality of evidence across all the outcomes.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There was insufficient evidence on the benefits and harms of co-bedding stable preterm twins to make any recommendation in practice. There is a need for future studies that are adequately powered to detect clinically important differences in growth and neurodevelopment. Such studies should also assess harms including infections and medication errors, and caregiver satisfaction.

Cobedding and recovery time after heel lance in preterm twins: results of a randomized trial

OBJECTIVES

Cobedding of preterm twin infants provides tactile, olfactory, and auditory stimulation and may affect pain reactivity. We carried out a randomized trial to assess the effect of cobedding on pain reactivity and recovery in preterm twin neonates.

METHODS

Stable preterm twins (n = 67 sets) between 28 and 36 weeks of gestational age were randomly assigned to a cobedding group (cared for in the same incubator or crib) or a standard care group (cared for in separate incubators or cribs). Pain response (determined by the Premature Infant Pain Profile [PIPP]) and time to return to physiologic baseline parameters were compared between groups with adjustment for the nonindependence of twin infants.

RESULTS

Maternal and infant characteristics were not significantly different between twin infants in the cobedding and standard care groups except for 5-minute Apgar <7 and postnatal age and corrected gestational age on the day of the heel lance. Mean PIPP scores were not different between groups at 30, 60, or 120 seconds. At 90 seconds, mean PIPP scores were higher in the cobedding group (6.0 vs 5.0, P = .04). Recovery time was shorter in the cobedding group compared with the standard care group, (mean = 75.6 seconds versus 142.1 seconds, P = .001). No significant adverse events were associated with cobedding. Adjustment for nonindependence between twins and differences in baseline characteristics did not change the results.

CONCLUSIONS

Cobedding enhanced the physiologic recovery of preterm twins undergoing heel lance, but did not lead to lower pain scores.

The prevalence of cobedding and SIDS-related child care practices in twins

Sudden unexplained and unexpected death in twins has not been well studied, particularly in relation to the common practice of sleeping twin infants together in the same cot (cobedding). Postal surveys of 109 mothers of twins were undertaken when the infants were 6 weeks, 4 months, and 8 months of age to determine the prevalence of cobedding, infant care practices related to sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS), and the mother's knowledge of SIDS risk factors. SIDS risk factor knowledge was similar to an earlier survey of singletons in 2005. At 6 weeks, 76% of infants usually slept on the back; this changed to 86% at 4 months and 73% at 8 months. At 6 weeks, 52% usually cobedded with their twin all or part of the time. At 4 and 8 months, this had reduced to 31% and 10%, respectively. Side-by-side cobedding configurations were predominant at 6 weeks, with feet-to-feet configurations increasing as the infants grew older. Breastfeeding was reported in 83%, 61% and 31% of infants at 6 weeks, 4 months and 8 months, respectively. Pacifier use was reported in 38%, 50% and 33% at the respective surveys. As the age of the twins increased, mothers were significantly more likely to be concerned about deformational plagiocephaly in Twin 1 than in Twin 2.

CONCLUSION

Despite a lack of evidence of the risks or benefits of cobedding, this practice was very popular, especially in the younger infants. More research is needed to establish the safety of cobedding in relation to the risk of SIDS.