 |
 |
In “A Cautionary Tale About Supplemental Oxygen: The Albatross of Neonatal Medicine,” published in 2004, Dr. William Silverman reflected on the role of routine supplemental oxygen in the retinopathy of prematurity (ROP) epidemic of the 1940s and 1950s and recounted the first randomized clinical trial (RCT), in 1954, of routine vs. restrictive oxygen therapy. The investigators in that study concluded that restrictive use of oxygen (fraction of inspired oxygen [FiO2] <0.4) was sufficient to completely eliminate ROP in preterm infants.1 Though that bold statement has proved untrue, prospective and retrospective cohort studies have consistently shown that restrictive use of supplemental oxygen reduces the risk of ROP, decreases ROP severity, and decreases need for retinal surgery to treat ROP.2-7 While confirming the benefit of restrictive oxygen therapy to prevent ROP, a recent RCT found that excessive oxygen restriction may be associated with harm. The commentary below will review these studies and offer suggestions for an oxygen management strategy that balances oxygen-related benefits and risks of harm for preterm infants at risk for ROP.
In 2003, Chow and colleagues (reviewed in this issue) reported an 80% reduction in the incidence of stages 3 to 4 ROP and a 30% reduction in retinal surgery for threshold ROP after introducing oxygen saturation targets of 85% to 93%, rather than to higher targets in infants with birth weights of 500 to 1500 gm. In the before-and-after study design, the study intervention not only defined the target saturation, but also provided specific guidance on how and when to adjust the FiO2 in response to oxygen saturations that were outside the target range. Using a similar oxygen intervention, Deulofeut and associates (reviewed herein) demonstrated that, compared with those managed with higher targets, patients managed with oxygen saturation targets of 85% to 93% experienced a 50% reduction in stage 2 ROP, along with a 30% reduction in the risk for bronchopulmonary dysplasia (BPD; defined as the need for oxygen at 36 weeks), higher mental developmental index, and similar rates of neurodevelopmental impairment. Similar results have been reported by Chen and coworkers (reviewed in this issue) in a systematic review of 5 cohort studies. A meta-analysis of these studies demonstrated a 52% reduction in the incidence of severe ROP (relative risk [RR], 0.48; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.31 to 0.75) without increases in rates of mortality or cerebral palsy.8
This year, Ellsbury and collaborators (reviewed herein) reported the results of a quality improvement (QI) initiative in 80 neonatal intensive care units (NICUs) in which implementation of a comprehensive supplemental oxygen management program, including saturation targets of 85% to 93% rather than higher targets, was associated with a 50% reduction in the risk for severe ROP and fewer days on supplemental oxygen. In addition to confirming that mortality, necrotizing enterocolitis (NEC), and patent ductus arteriosus (PDA) rates were not altered by the QI initiative, this report provides an extensive discussion of personnel and system-based barriers to achieving intended oxygen saturations and offers suggestions for overcoming those obstacles.
Based on these and other studies,7,9,10 an upper oxygen saturation limit not exceeding 95% is effective in reducing the incidence and severity of ROP and the duration of oxygen therapy without increasing mortality or neurodevelopmental impairment. Avoiding oxygen saturations >95% can now be considered a best practice for most preterm infants during the acute neonatal period.
Targeting lower oxygen saturations may be effective in reducing ROP, in part by reducing the frequency of hyperoxic events.11,12 In a report comparing partial pressure of oxygen in arterial blood (PaO2) values obtained from indwelling arterial catheters with simultaneous pulse oxygen saturation values, patients with higher (>93%) vs. lower (85-93%) oxygen saturation targets experienced more hyperoxic episodes (PaO2 >80 mm Hg; 59.5% vs. 4.6%; P<.001), and those with lower targets experienced more hypoxic episodes (PaO2 <40 mm Hg; 8.6% vs. 1.0%; P<.001).13 Although it is not yet known whether these hypoxic episodes are clinically important, the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD) SUrfactant Positive Pressure Oxygenation Randomized Trial (SUPPORT; reviewed herein) recently raised safety concerns about supplemental oxygen therapy with saturation targets in the lower segments compared with the higher segments of the 85% to 95% saturation range.
In SUPPORT, enrolled patients were randomized to receive oxygen therapy to achieve saturation targets of either 85% to 89% or 91% to 95%. The target saturation assignment was masked using study oximeters with an electronic software offset, which by consensus of the study investigators, displayed 88% to 92% for all enrolled patients. The primary outcome of the combined risk for death or severe ROP did not differ between the treatment groups, with a reduction in the risk for severe ROP being offset by a greater risk for mortality. These results suggest that oxygen therapy to maintain saturation targets of 85% to 89% vs. 91% to 95% might be expected to result in 1 death for every 2 to 3 cases of severe ROP prevented. Although the duration of oxygen therapy was shorter in the low-saturation group, the incidence of BPD defined using the physiologic definition (i.e., need for oxygen after an attempt at oxygen withdrawal) did not differ between the groups. Assessments of neurodevelopmental and pulmonary outcomes at 18 to 22 months of corrected age are ongoing and will be reported in the future.
How are we to interpret the available data? With such a difficult trade-off between higher incidence of severe ROP or greater risk for mortality, the safest approach at this time, pending additional data, is likely to target oxygen saturations of 88% to 92%—the middle ground of a saturation range between a lower saturation alarm limit of 85% and an upper limit of 93% to 95%, and the consensus position used in SUPPORT. We may have greater clarity in the near future. There are 4 ongoing studies, enrolling nearly 5000 patients that compare saturation targets of 85% to 89% vs. 91% to 95%. The investigators of these studies are to be commended for agreeing in advance to share individual level data with each other for use in meta-analyses. This will add a great deal to our understanding.
Identifying the ideal oxygen saturation, while not yet achieved, is only part of the challenge in managing oxygen therapy to prevent ROP. Barriers to achieving desired oxygen saturation targets have been well described.14,15 A study of intended vs. actual oxygen saturations found that actual oxygen saturations were outside the intended range >50% of the time, and during two-thirds of that time, the saturations were high.14 In addition to challenges associated with manually adjusting FiO2, fluctuations in oxygen saturation, including periods of hyperoxia and hypoxia, increase the risk for severe ROP. Di Fiore and coworkers (study reviewed in this issue) found that infants experience progressively more frequent hypoxemic episodes over the first 8 weeks of age, and the number of such episodes is related directly to the risk for requiring retinal laser surgery to treat ROP. In addition to individual physiologic variability, a patient’s care environment has long been recognized to influence oxygen saturation variability. In 1980, Long and coworkers reported that greater ambient noise and frequent handling increased the number of transient hypoxemic episodes among infants in an intensive care nursery.16,17 Although not proved to reduce the rates of ROP, it seems reasonable to complement careful oxygen saturation targeting with care practices that limit preventable transient hypoxemic events.
The ability of clinical QI efforts to overcome barriers to effective oxygen saturation targeting is encouraging.5,18 Identification of other care practices or technologies, such as automated inspired oxygen controllers that respond to changes in oxygen saturation and thus aid in tighter control of oxygen saturations, warrants ongoing, future investigation.19,20 Until that happens, there is no substitute for exquisite nursing and medical attention to appropriate oxygen saturation targets and thoughtful response to their fluctuations.
Commentary References
| 1. |
Silverman WA. A cautionary tale about supplemental oxygen: the albatross of neonatal medicine. Pediatrics. 2004;113(2):394-396. |
 |
| 2. |
Wright KW, Sami D, Thompson L, Ramanathan R, Joseph R, Farzavandi S. A physiologic reduced oxygen protocol decreases the incidence of threshold retinopathy of prematurity. Trans Am Ophthalmol Soc. 2006;104:78-84. |
 |
| 3. |
Vanderveen DK, Mansfield TA, Eichenwald EC. Lower oxygen saturation alarm limits decrease the severity of retinopathy of prematurity. J AAPOS. 2006;10(5):445-448.
|
 |
| 4. |
Wallace DK, Veness-Meehan KA, Miller WC. Incidence of severe retinopathy of prematurity before and after a modest reduction in target oxygen saturation levels. J AAPOS. 2007;11(2):170-174.
|
 |
| 5. |
Chow LC, Wright KW, Sola A; CSMC Oxygen Administration Study Group. Can changes in clinical practice decrease the incidence of severe retinopathy of prematurity in very low birth weight infants? Pediatrics. 2003; 111(2):339-345. |
 |
| 6. |
Deulofeut R, Critz A, Adams-Chapman I, Sola A. Avoiding hyperoxia in infants < or = 1250 g is associated with improved short- and long-term outcomes. J Perinatol. 2006; 26(11):700-705. |
 |
| 7. |
Tin W, Milligan DW, Pennefather P, Hey E. Pulse oximetry, severe retinopathy, and outcome at one year in babies of less than 28 weeks gestation. Arch Dis Child Fetal Neonatal Ed. 2001;84(2):F106-F110. |
 |
| 8. |
Chen ML, Guo L, Smith LE, Dammann CE, Dammann O. High or low oxygen saturation and severe retinopathy of prematurity: a meta-analysis. Pediatrics. 2010;125(6):e1483-e1492. |
 |
| 9. |
Noori S, Patel D, Friedlich P, Siassi B, Seri I, Ramanathan R. Effects of low oxygen saturation limits on the ductus arteriosus in extremely low birth weight infants. J Perinatol. 2009;29(8):553-557. |
 |
| 10. |
Tokuhiro Y, Yoshida T, Nakabayashi Y, et al. Reduced oxygen protocol decreases the incidence of threshold retinopathy of prematurity in infants of <33 weeks gestation. Pediatr Int. 2009;51(6):804-806. |
 |
| 11. |
York JR, Landers S, Kirby RS, Arbogast PG, Penn JS. Arterial oxygen fluctuation and retinopathy of prematurity in very-low-birth-weight infants. J Perinatol. 2004;24(2):82-87. |
 |
| 12. |
Di Fiore JM, Bloom JN, Orge F, et al. A higher incidence of intermittent hypoxemic episodes is associated with severe retinopathy of prematurity. J Pediatr. 2010;157(1):69-73. |
 |
| 13. |
Castillo A, Sola A, Baquero H, et al. Pulse oxygen saturation levels and arterial oxygen tension values in newborns receiving oxygen therapy in the neonatal intensive care unit: is 85% to 93% an acceptable range? Pediatrics. 2008;121(5):882-889. |
 |
| 14. |
Hagadorn JI, Furey AM, Nghiem TH, et al; AVIOx Study Group. Achieved versus intended pulse oximeter saturation in infants born less than 28 weeks’ gestation: the AVIOx study. Pediatrics. 2006;118(4):1574-1582. |
 |
| 15. |
Ford SP, Leick-Rude MK, Meinert KA, et al. Overcoming barriers to oxygen saturation targeting. Pediatrics. 2006;118(suppl 2):S177-S186. |
 |
| 16. |
Long JG, Lucey JF, Philip AG. Noise and hypoxemia in the intensive care nursery. Pediatrics. 1980;65(1):143-145. |
 |
| 17. |
Long JG, Philip AG, Lucey JF. Excessive handling as a cause of hypoxemia. Pediatrics 1980;65(2):203-207. |
 |
| 18. |
Ellsbury DL, Ursprung R. Comprehensive oxygen management for the prevention of retinopathy of prematurity: the Pediatrix experience. Clin Perinatol. 2010;37(1):203-215. |
 |
| 19. |
Claure N, D’Ugard C, Bancalari E. Automated adjustment of inspired oxygen in preterm infants with frequent fluctuations in oxygenation: a pilot clinical trial. JPediatr.2009;155(5):640-645. |
 |
| 20. |
Urschitz MS, Horn W, Seyfang A, et al. Automatic control of the inspired oxygen fraction in preterm infants: a randomized crossover trial. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2004;170(10):1095-1100. |
|
|
|