Objective: To compare 2 different methods (auscultation with a stethoscope and umbilical cord palpation) of heart rate (HR) estimation in newborns at risk for resuscitation in a low-resource setting. Study design: Sixty newborns at risk for resuscitation born at the St. Luke Catholic Hospital in Wolisso (Ethiopia) were randomized to HR assessment by auscultation using a stethoscope or umbilical cord palpation. HR was assessed at 60, 90, 120 seconds, and 5 minutes of life. The primary outcome was the agreement of HR obtained by auscultation or palpation compared with the HR determined by electrocardiogram. Results: Mean difference between auscultation using a stethoscope and electrocardiogram was −13 bpm, −4 bpm, −6 bpm, and −10 bpm at 60, 90, 120 seconds, and at 5 minutes of life. Mean difference between palpation and electrocardiogram of was −20 bpm, −25 bpm, −23 bpm, and −31 bpm at 60, 90, 120 seconds, and at 5 minutes of life. The magnitude of the difference between auscultation and electrocardiogram was lower than that between palpation and electrocardiogram over time (P = .007). HR range was correctly identified in 14 out of 16 measurements (87%) with HR <100 bpm. Conclusion: HR assessment by auscultation was more accurate compared with cord palpation, but both may provide adequate clinical information to healthcare providers in terms of HR ranges. The clinical advantage of providing a stethoscope in low-resource settings remains to be established. Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT03854435.

Heart Rate Determination in Newborns at Risk for Resuscitation in a Low-Resource Setting: A Randomized Controlled Trial

Cavallin F.;Vento G.;Putoto G.;Trevisanuto D.
2020

Abstract

Objective: To compare 2 different methods (auscultation with a stethoscope and umbilical cord palpation) of heart rate (HR) estimation in newborns at risk for resuscitation in a low-resource setting. Study design: Sixty newborns at risk for resuscitation born at the St. Luke Catholic Hospital in Wolisso (Ethiopia) were randomized to HR assessment by auscultation using a stethoscope or umbilical cord palpation. HR was assessed at 60, 90, 120 seconds, and 5 minutes of life. The primary outcome was the agreement of HR obtained by auscultation or palpation compared with the HR determined by electrocardiogram. Results: Mean difference between auscultation using a stethoscope and electrocardiogram was −13 bpm, −4 bpm, −6 bpm, and −10 bpm at 60, 90, 120 seconds, and at 5 minutes of life. Mean difference between palpation and electrocardiogram of was −20 bpm, −25 bpm, −23 bpm, and −31 bpm at 60, 90, 120 seconds, and at 5 minutes of life. The magnitude of the difference between auscultation and electrocardiogram was lower than that between palpation and electrocardiogram over time (P = .007). HR range was correctly identified in 14 out of 16 measurements (87%) with HR <100 bpm. Conclusion: HR assessment by auscultation was more accurate compared with cord palpation, but both may provide adequate clinical information to healthcare providers in terms of HR ranges. The clinical advantage of providing a stethoscope in low-resource settings remains to be established. Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT03854435.
File in questo prodotto:
Non ci sono file associati a questo prodotto.
Pubblicazioni consigliate

Caricamento pubblicazioni consigliate

I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: https://hdl.handle.net/11577/3369540
Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? 0
  • Scopus 1
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? ND
social impact