Developmental care does not alter sleep and development of premature infants
ABSTRACT The Neonatal Individualized Developmental Care Program (NIDCAP) for very low birth weight (VLBW) preterm infants has been suggested by Als et al to improve several medical outcome variables such as time on ventilator, time to nipple feed, the duration of hospital stay, better behavioral performance on Assessment of Preterm Infants' Behavior (APIB), and improved neurodevelopmental outcomes. We have tested the hypothesis of whether the infants who had received NIDCAP would show advanced sleep-wake pattern, behavioral, and neurodevelopmental outcome.
Thirty-five VLBW infants were randomly assigned to receive NIDCAP or routine infant care. The goals for NIDCAP intervention were to enhance comfort and stability and to reduce stress and agitation for the preterm infants by: a) altering the environment by decreasing excess light and noise in the neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) and by using covers over the incubators and cribs; b) use of positioning aids such as boundary supports, nests, and buntings to promote a balance of flexion and extension postures; c) modification of direct hands-on caregiving to maximize preparation of infants for, tolerance of, and facilitation of recovery from interventions; d) promotion of self-regulatory behaviors such as holding on, grasping, and sucking; e) attention to the readiness for and the ability to take oral feedings; and f) involving parents in the care of their infants as much as possible. The infants' sleep was recorded at 36 weeks postconceptional age (PCA) and at 3 months corrected age (CA) using the Motility Monitoring System (MMS), an automated, nonintrusive procedure for determining sleep state from movement and respiration patterns. Behavioral and developmental outcome was assessed by the Neurobehavioral Assessment of the Preterm Infant (NAPI) at 36 weeks PCA, the APIB at 42 weeks PCA, and by the Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID) at 4, 12, and 24 months CA.
Sleep developmental measures at 3 months CA showed a clear developmental change compared with 36 weeks PCA. These include: increased amount of quiet sleep, reduced active sleep and indeterminate sleep, decreased arousal, and transitions during sleep. Longest sleep period at night showed a clear developmental effect (increased) when comparing nighttime sleep pattern of infants at 3 months with those at 36 weeks of age. Day-night rhythm of sleep-wake increased significantly from 36 weeks PCA to 3 months CA. However, neither of these sleep developmental changes showed any significant effects of NIDCAP intervention. Although all APIB measures showed better organized behavior in NIDCAP patients, neither NAPI nor Bayley showed any developmental advantages for the intervention group. The neurodevelopmental outcome measured by the Bayley at 4, 12, and 24 months CA showed 64% of the NIDCAP intervention group at the lowest possible score compared with 33% of the control group. These findings could not be explained by the occurrence of intraventricular hemorrhage or the socioeconomic status of the parents, which showed no significant group effect.
The results of this study, including measures of sleep maturation and neurodevelopmental outcome up to 2 years of age did not demonstrate that the NIDCAP intervention results in increased maturity or development. Buehler et al (Pediatrics. 1995;96:923-932) have reported that premature infants (N = 12; mean gestational age 32 weeks, mean birth weight 1700 g) who received developmental care compared with a similar group of infants who received routine care showed better organized behavioral performance on an APIB assessment at 42 weeks PCA. None of the medical outcome measures were significantly different in this study. Although our APIB results are in agreement, the results of the NAPI, the Bayley and sleep measures do not show an increase in neurodevelopmental maturation. In the earlier report by Als et al (Journal of the American Medical Associatio
- SourceAvailable from: Kenneth Loparo
[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
- "Comparisons among SSC studies remain difficult because different methods to access sleep organization were used, different methods of developmental intervention were applied, and environmental variables such as light, sound, and tactile stimulation were not uniformly reported. For example, studies reported no differences in sleep organization with changes in sleep input (Becker et al 1993, Ariagno el al 1997, Hellstrom-Westas etal 2001, Brandon et al 2001, Westrup et al 2002, Mirmiran et al 2003). "
ABSTRACT: Skin-to-skin contact (SSC) promotes physiological stability and interaction between parents and infants. Analyses of EEG-sleep studies can compare functional brain maturation between SSC and non-SSC cohorts. Sixteen EEG-sleep studies were performed on eight preterm infants who received 8 weeks of SSC, and compared with two non-SSC cohorts at term (N=126), a preterm group corrected to term age and a full-term group. Seven linear and two complexity measures were compared (Mann-Whitney U test comparisons p<.05). Fewer REMs, more quiet sleep, increased respiratory regularity, longer cycles, and less spectral beta were noted for SSC preterm infants compared with both control cohorts. Fewer REMs, greater arousals and more quiet sleep were noted for SSC infants compared with the non-SSC preterms at term. Three right hemispheric regions had greater complexity in the SSC group. Discriminant analysis showed that the SSC cohort was closer to the non-SSC full-term cohort. Skin-to-skin contact accelerates brain maturation in healthy preterm infants compared with two groups without SSC. Combined use of linear and complexity analysis strategies offer complementary information regarding altered neuronal functions after developmental care interventions. Such analyses may be helpful to assess other neuroprotection strategies.Clinical neurophysiology: official journal of the International Federation of Clinical Neurophysiology 09/2009; 120(10):1812-8. DOI:10.1016/j.clinph.2009.08.004 · 2.98 Impact Factor
[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
- "I = intervention group; C = control group. a This result has also been reported by Ariagno et al. (1997). from the Westrup et al. (2000) "
ABSTRACT: Important advancements have been made in the care of preterm infants. Health services have introduced various methods aimed at promoting attachment, breastfeeding, and neurological development. The Newborn Individualized Developmental Care and Assessment Program (NIDCAP), developed to stimulate preterm infants at levels adapted to the child's degree of neurological maturity, is increasingly being used. The aim was to investigate the impact of NIDCAP on the psychomotor development, neurological status, medical/nursing care outcomes, and parental perceptions. A further aim was to evaluate the cost-related effects of NIDCAP. A literature search up to September 2007 was performed. The reviewed papers were assessed for methodological quality and only statistically significant findings were extracted. The evidence compiled on the effects of NIDCAP is based on 12 articles from six randomized controlled trials that included approximately 250 children. Each of the studies was assessed as having medium quality. Most of the studies were small and many investigated a huge number of outcome variables, which decreased their scientific strength. On outcome variables in which a significant difference was found between the intervention (NIDCAP) and control groups, most studies showed better results for the NIDCAP group. This was particularly valid for cognitive and psychomotor development. Four studies also showed a reduced need for respiratory support for the NIDCAP group. No studies were identified that weighed the total cost of NIDCAP against its effects. Despite promising findings, primarily on cognitive and motor development, the scientific evidence on the effects of NIDCAP is limited. Shortcomings in design and methods in the reviewed studies hamper far-reaching claims on the effectiveness of the method. Scientific grounds for assessing the effects of NIDCAP would be substantially enhanced by a sufficiently comprehensive study with extended follow-up and a clear focus on a few important outcome variables.Worldviews on Evidence-Based Nursing 05/2009; 6(2):54-69. DOI:10.1111/j.1741-6787.2009.00150.x · 2.32 Impact Factor
[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
- "No significant difference was observed in sleep organization at 36 and 52 weeks post-conceptional age by Ariagno et al. . However, this last study were not designed primarily to analyze sleep and statistical power may have been decreased because of an insufficient number of patients in each group . In a recent randomized trial, Mirmiran et al. did not observe a significant impact of NICU environmental lighting on circadian and sleep development in preterm neonates at 36 weeks, 1 and 3 months corrected age . "
ABSTRACT: Sleep is the main behavioral state of the premature infant. In adult intensive care units, sleep deprivation has been reported as one of the major stressors. Developmental care (DC) aims to decrease stressful events in neonatal intensive care unit and support well-being. To assess whether DC is accompanied by changes in sleep in preterm neonates. A prospective cross-over study included 33 preterm neonates [mean (S.D.): gestational age: 29.3 (1.8) weeks; birth weight: 1245 (336) g]. Polysomnography was performed in two randomly ordered 3-h periods with and without DC. A blinded electrophysiologist analyzed sleep. The total sleep time (TST) was the primary outcome, duration of active (AS), quiet (QS) and indeterminate sleep, and latency before sleep were the secondary outcomes. Non-parametric Wilcoxon tests and ANOVA were used. In DC condition vs. control: TST increased [in minutes, mean (S.E.M.): 156.2 (2.9) vs. 139.2 (4.6), p=0.002], with increase in AS [86.6 (3.7) vs. 77.0 (4.2), p=0.024] and in QS [47.1 (4.1) vs. 36.9 (4.2), p=0.015], and sleeping latency decreased (2.1 (0.7) vs. 10.5 (2.0), p=0.0005]. DC promoted sleep in our study. The impact of DC on the neuro-behavioral outcome needs futures studies.Early Human Development 08/2005; 81(7):595-600. DOI:10.1016/j.earlhumdev.2005.01.008 · 1.93 Impact Factor