N Engl J Med 2020 11;383(22):2138-2147
From the Center for International Health (N.J.P., S.M.H., T.T.) and the Center for Intervention Science in Maternal and Child Health (T.T.), University of Bergen, Bergen, and the Department of Anesthesiology and Intensive Care, Stavanger University Hospital (H.E.), and the Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Stavanger (H.E.), Stavanger - both in Norway; Sachs' Children and Youth Hospital (N.J.P., S.M.H., T.A.) and the Departments of Global Public Health (N.J.P., S.M.H., T.A.) and Clinical Science, Technology, and Intervention (M.B.), Karolinska Institutet, and the Department of Neonatal Medicine, Karolinska University Hospital (M.B.) - all in Stockholm; Mulago National Referral Hospital (J.B., C.L., J.N.) and the Departments of Obstetrics and Gynecology (J.B.) and Pediatrics and Child Health (J.N.), College of Health Sciences, Makerere University, Kampala, Uganda; and independent statistician, Solagna (F.C.), and the Department of Women's and Children's Health, Padua University, Padua (D.T.) - both in Italy.
Background: Face-mask ventilation is the most common resuscitation method for birth asphyxia. Ventilation with a cuffless laryngeal mask airway (LMA) has potential advantages over face-mask ventilation during neonatal resuscitation in low-income countries, but whether the use of an LMA reduces mortality and morbidity among neonates with asphyxia is unknown.
Methods: In this phase 3, open-label, superiority trial in Uganda, we randomly assigned neonates who required positive-pressure ventilation to be treated by a midwife with an LMA or with face-mask ventilation. Read More