Introduction: Around 140 million children are born every year and post-natal transition is uncomplicated in the vast majority. However, around 5%–15% of neonates receive supportive interventions during transition. Recent data on the interventions used is scarce. More data on the frequencies with which these interventions are used is needed to evaluate neonatal resuscitation, guide recommendations and to generate hypotheses for further research. The following protocol describes an international, multicentre survey on the interventions currently applied during neonatal resuscitation. Objectives: To determine the frequencies at which different supportive interventions recommended by European Resuscitation Council (ERC) guidelines for neonatal resuscitation are used. To compare the frequencies between hospitals and patient groups and to investigate possible factors influencing any differences found. Methods: Participating hospitals will collect data on all interventions performed during neonatal resuscitation over a period of 6 months. All hospitals providing perinatal care are eligible regardless of size and designated level of neonatal care. Every neonate requiring more interventions than basic drying and tactile stimulation during the first 30 min of life will be included. The targeted sample size is at least 4,000 neonates who receive interventions. After anonymization, the data is pooled in a common database and descriptive and statistical analysis is performed globally and in subgroups. Possible correlations will be investigated with phi coefficient and chi square testing. Ethics and dissemination: Consent of the institutional review board of the Technical University Dresden was obtained for the local data collection under the number BO-EK-198042022. Additionally, approval of local ethical or institutional review boards will be obtained by the participating hospitals if required. Results will be published in peer-reviewed journals and presented at suitable scientific conferences.

Background: Since an objective description is essential to determine infant’s postnatal condition and efficacy of interventions, two scores were suggested in the past but weren’t tested yet: The Specified-Apgar uses the 5 items of the conventional Apgar score; however describes the condition regardless of gestational age (GA) or resuscitative interventions. The Expanded-Apgar measures interventions needed to achieve this condition. We hypothesized that the combination of both (Combined-Apgar) describes postnatal condition of preterm infants better than either of the scores alone. Methods: Scores were assessed in preterm infants below 32 completed weeks of gestation. Data were prospectively collected in 20 NICU in 12 countries. Prediction of poor outcome (death, severe/moderate BPD, IVH, CPL and ROP) was used as a surrogate parameter to compare the scores. To compare predictive value the AUC for the ROC was calculated. Results: Of 2150 eligible newborns, data on 1855 infants with a mean GA of 286/7± 23/7 weeks were analyzed. At 1 minute, the Combined-Apgar was significantly better in predicting poor outcome than the Specified- or Expanded-Apgar alone. Of infants with a very low score at 5 or 10 minutes 81% or 100% had a poor outcome, respectively. In these infants the relative risk (RR) for perinatal mortality was 24.93 (13.16-47.20) and 31.34 (15.91-61.71), respectively. Conclusion: The Combined-Apgar allows a more appropriate description of infant’s condition under conditions of modern neonatal care. It should be used as a tool for better comparison of group of infants and postnatal interventions.

Background: Since an objective description is essential to determine infant’s postnatal condition and efficacy of interventions, two scores were suggested in the past but weren’t tested yet: The Specified-Apgar uses the 5 items of the conventional Apgar score; however describes the condition regardless of gestational age (GA) or resuscitative interventions. The Expanded-Apgar measures interventions needed to achieve this condition. We hypothesized that the combination of both (Combined-Apgar) describes postnatal condition of preterm infants better than either of the scores alone. Methods: Scores were assessed in preterm infants below 32 completed weeks of gestation. Data were prospectively collected in 20 NICU in 12 countries. Prediction of poor outcome (death, severe/moderate BPD, IVH, CPL and ROP) was used as a surrogate parameter to compare the scores. To compare predictive value the AUC for the ROC was calculated. Results: Of 2150 eligible newborns, data on 1855 infants with a mean GA of 286/7± 23/7 weeks were analyzed. At 1 minute, the Combined-Apgar was significantly better in predicting poor outcome than the Specified- or Expanded-Apgar alone. Of infants with a very low score at 5 or 10 minutes 81% or 100% had a poor outcome, respectively. In these infants the relative risk (RR) for perinatal mortality was 24.93 (13.16-47.20) and 31.34 (15.91-61.71), respectively. Conclusion: The Combined-Apgar allows a more appropriate description of infant’s condition under conditions of modern neonatal care. It should be used as a tool for better comparison of group of infants and postnatal interventions.

Aim: Despite the lack of evidence, current resuscitation guidelines recommend tactile stimulation in apneic infants within the first minutes of life. The aim was to investigate whether timing, duration or intensity of tactile stimulation influences the extent of non-invasive respiratory support in extremely preterm infants during neonatal resuscitation. Methods: In an observational study, we analyzed 47 video recordings and physiological parameters during postnatal transition in preterm infants below 320/7 weeks of gestational age. Infants were divided into three groups according to the intensity of respiratory support. Results: All infants were stimulated at least once during neonatal resuscitation regardless of their respiratory support. Only 51% got stimulated within the first minute. Rubbing the feet was the preferred stimulation method and was followed by rubbing or touching the chest. Almost all very preterm infants were exposed to stimulation and manipulation most of the time within their first 15 min of life. Tactile stimulation lasted significantly longer but stimulation at multiple body areas started later in infants receiving prolonged non-invasive respiratory support. Conclusion: This observational study demonstrated that stimulation of very preterm infants is a commonly used and easy applicable method to stimulate spontaneous breathing during neonatal resuscitation. The concomitant physical stimulation of different body parts and therefore larger surface areas might be beneficial.