VentFirst for Extremely Preterm Infants
What You Need to Know Before You Apply
What is the purpose of this trial?
This trial explores whether providing breathing support to extremely preterm infants (born between 23 and 28 weeks) before cutting the umbilical cord reduces brain bleeding compared to the usual method of waiting to provide breathing support. The trial includes two groups: one receives standard care, involving delayed cord cutting followed by breathing support, while the other receives VentFirst, which provides breathing support before cutting the cord. Infants born between 23 and 28 weeks without certain severe health issues may be suitable for this trial. As an unphased trial, it offers a unique opportunity to contribute to groundbreaking research that could improve outcomes for future preterm infants.
Will I have to stop taking my current medications?
The trial information does not specify whether participants must stop taking their current medications.
What prior data suggests that this protocol is safe for extremely preterm infants?
Research has shown that assisting extremely preterm babies with breathing before cutting the umbilical cord has been studied for safety. The findings indicate that this method does not reduce the risk of brain bleeding or early death compared to assisting with breathing after the cord is cut. However, it might help the baby adjust more smoothly to breathing and blood flow.
The studies found no major safety issues with providing this early breathing assistance, suggesting it is generally safe. While it may not reduce certain risks, current evidence supports its safety.12345Why are researchers excited about this trial?
Researchers are excited about VentFirst because it offers a new approach to treating extremely preterm infants by providing assisted ventilation before cutting the umbilical cord, instead of after. This method extends the time for cord clamping to 120 seconds, potentially improving oxygenation and stabilizing vital signs right from birth. Unlike the standard practice of delaying cord clamping for 30-60 seconds, VentFirst could enhance immediate respiratory support, which may lead to better outcomes for these vulnerable infants.
What evidence suggests that the VentFirst technique is effective for reducing intraventricular hemorrhage in extremely preterm infants?
This trial will compare two approaches for extremely preterm infants: the VentFirst method, which provides assisted ventilation before cord clamping at 120 seconds, and the standard practice of cord clamping at 30-60 seconds followed by assisted ventilation. Research has shown that assisting extremely premature babies with breathing before cutting the umbilical cord does not significantly reduce the risk of brain bleeding or early death. Several studies have found no clear advantage to this method compared to the usual practice of waiting to assist breathing until after the cord is cut. In these studies, the rates of brain bleeding and survival were similar for babies who received early breathing help and those who did not. Overall, strong evidence does not support that this early breathing support changes these important outcomes.12346
Who Is on the Research Team?
Karen Fairchild, MD
Principal Investigator
University of Virginia
Are You a Good Fit for This Trial?
Inclusion Criteria
Exclusion Criteria
Timeline for a Trial Participant
Screening
Participants are screened for eligibility to participate in the trial
Treatment
Newborns receive either standard care with delayed cord clamping and ventilatory assistance after, or the VentFirst intervention with ventilatory assistance before cord clamping.
Follow-up
Participants are monitored for safety and effectiveness, including the occurrence of intraventricular hemorrhage and other outcomes.
What Are the Treatments Tested in This Trial?
Interventions
- Standard Cord Clamping
- VentFirst
Find a Clinic Near You
Who Is Running the Clinical Trial?
University of Virginia
Lead Sponsor
Brigham and Women's Hospital
Collaborator
Indiana University
Collaborator
University of California, Davis
Collaborator
St. Louis University
Collaborator
University of Colorado, Denver
Collaborator
Oregon Health and Science University
Collaborator
University of Alberta
Collaborator
Columbia University
Collaborator
Mount Sinai Hospital, Canada
Collaborator