Systematic ReviewResearchWorkflowQuality Improvement

Placental admission sampling may reduce treated ROP in very preterm infants

The Cochrane database of systematic reviews (PubMed)Aug 26, 2026

AI-summarized from the linked source. Educational brief, not medical advice.

Brief summary

A Cochrane review found that using cord or placental blood for admission tests likely reduced retinopathy of prematurity requiring treatment and may have reduced severe intraventricular hemorrhage in very preterm infants.

What NurseJet pulled from the source

Five randomized trials included 365 preterm infants whose mean gestational age was under 29 weeks. Compared with sampling only from the infant, cord or placental admission sampling likely reduced treated retinopathy of prematurity and may have reduced severe intraventricular hemorrhage. Evidence for mortality and for blood-return devices or strict sampling protocols was very uncertain.

Why this matters for nurses

Neonatal nurses coordinate frequent laboratory testing while protecting a very small circulating blood volume. This review identifies cord or placental admission sampling as a promising conservation strategy while showing that evidence for other approaches remains limited.

Bedside takeaway

Cord or placental blood for admission tests may conserve infant blood and reduce selected preterm morbidities, but evidence for other strategies remains uncertain.

How This Applies in Practice

Use this when: Preparing admission laboratory testing for a very preterm infant in a neonatal unit with an approved placental or cord-blood sampling pathway.

On your shift

Confirm which ordered admission tests are validated for cord or placental blood and follow the unit collection protocol.
Document specimen source and monitor specimen adequacy, repeat draws, and subsequent cumulative blood sampling.
Escalate inadequate specimens or urgent testing needs without delaying clinically necessary infant sampling.

Keep in mind: The evidence comes from five small trials and does not validate every blood-conservation device or protocol. Follow neonatal policy and provider orders.

Key takeaways

The review included five randomized trials with 365 preterm infants; mean gestational age was under 29 weeks in every study.
Cord or placental admission sampling likely reduced retinopathy of prematurity requiring treatment compared with sampling only from the infant.
The same strategy may reduce severe intraventricular hemorrhage, but that evidence was low certainty.
Evidence for blood-return devices, strict sampling protocols, mortality, and long-term neurodevelopment was very uncertain or unavailable.

Practice implications

Within an approved neonatal pathway, coordinate which admission tests can use cord or placental blood, label and handle specimens correctly, and track subsequent sampling volume. Do not delay clinically necessary testing or improvise blood-return methods outside protocol.

Limitations & cautions

Only five small trials were included, and the different conservation strategies could not be treated as one intervention. Mortality and most major morbidity estimates were uncertain, and no study reported the specified long-term neurodevelopmental outcomes.
AI-summarized from the linked source. Review the original article before applying to practice.

Citations

Exact source links

Open source

Public citations are filtered to exact credible source pages. Homepage-only or invalid links stay in admin review and are not shown here.

The Cochrane database of systematic reviews (PubMed)

The Cochrane database of systematic reviews (PubMed). Minimizing blood sampling in preterm infants.

Open original source

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/42644552/

Professional education only

This summary does not replace clinical judgment, facility policy, provider orders, or official guidelines. Verify practice changes against the original source and local protocol.

Related briefs

More updates for this clinical area

Back to Discover

Journal of midwifery & women's health (PubMed)Sep 7, 2026Research Article

A retrospective analysis of US natality data found no statistically significant yearly difference in neonatal mortality between freestanding birth centers and hospitals among term, singleton, vertex births without major medical risk factors from 2015 through 2024.

L&D / OB PedsAI summaryReview source

Research ArticleResearchPatient EducationAI summary · original source linked below

Adjusted neonatal-mortality odds for freestanding birth centers fluctuated around 1.0 across the 10-year study period. No individual year showed a statistically significant difference from hospital births, including 2020 and 2021 when birth-center volume increased.

Key takeaways

The analysis was restricted to births meeting selected low-risk criteria.
The study found no evidence that higher birth-center use during the pandemic years increased neonatal mortality.
The observational design cannot establish that birth setting itself caused the mortality pattern.

Why this matters on shift

The findings add national outcome data for counseling and systems planning around freestanding birth-center care for appropriately selected low-risk pregnancies.

Bedside takeaway

Apply local eligibility, surveillance, escalation, and transfer protocols when caring for planned low-risk birth-center patients.

Nursing implications

Keep eligibility, surveillance, escalation, and transfer decisions anchored to local birth-center criteria and maternal-newborn protocols.

Limitations & cautions

Abstract-only summary. The study used retrospective vital-record data, was limited to selected low-risk births, and cannot exclude residual differences between people who delivered in birth centers and hospitals.
AI-summarized from the linked source. Review the original article before applying to practice.

Citations · exact source links

Journal of midwifery & women's health (PubMed). Neonatal Mortality Risk Among Births in Freestanding Birth Centers, 2015 to 2024.

Open original sourceFull brief

AI-summarized from the linked source. Review the original article before applying to practice.

Pediatric emergency care (PubMed)Sep 7, 2026Research Article

A double-blind randomized trial found no reduction in vomiting or faster oral tolerance with intravenous pantoprazole versus placebo in children with acute gastroenteritis and persistent vomiting after ondansetron.

Peds EmergencyAI summaryReview source

Research ArticleResearchMedication SafetyAI summary · original source linked below

The trial randomized 100 children. Vomiting episodes and oral tolerance at 6 and 12 hours did not differ significantly, while median hospital stay was 2 days with pantoprazole and 1 day with placebo.

Key takeaways

The median participant age was 14 months, and 67% of participants were male.
Oral tolerance at 12 hours was 86% in both groups.
The longer stay associated with pantoprazole requires cautious interpretation because this was a single-center trial.

Why this matters on shift

The trial does not support empiric intravenous proton-pump inhibition for persistent vomiting in pediatric acute gastroenteritis after ondansetron.

Bedside takeaway

Clarify the indication for empiric acid suppression and keep hydration and oral-tolerance assessment central to care.

Nursing implications

Prioritize the ordered hydration and oral-tolerance plan, document ongoing emesis, and clarify the indication before administering empiric acid suppression.

Limitations & cautions

Abstract-only summary. This was a single-center study of 100 children in Tehran, and the abstract does not describe adverse events or explain why hospitalization was longer in the pantoprazole group.
AI-summarized from the linked source. Review the original article before applying to practice.

Citations · exact source links

Pediatric emergency care (PubMed). Effect of Intravenous Pantoprazole on Clinical Outcomes in Pediatric Acute Gastroenteritis: A Placebo-Controlled RCT.

Open original sourceFull brief

AI-summarized from the linked source. Review the original article before applying to practice.

Journal of neurology (PubMed)Sep 6, 2026Systematic Review

A cumulative meta-analysis found longer survival over time in Duchenne muscular dystrophy, alongside a shift from predominantly respiratory toward cardiac causes of death.

Peds ICUAI summaryReview source

Systematic ReviewResearchPatient EducationAI summary · original source linked below

The review included 53 studies and more than 13,000 patients. Pooled median survival was 29 years among ventilated patients and 19 years among non-ventilated patients, but these study-level observational comparisons do not establish that ventilation alone caused the difference.

Key takeaways

Sixty percent of patients in the included studies received home mechanical ventilation.
Survival improved progressively over time in both ventilated and non-ventilated groups.
As respiratory survival improved, cardiac and other causes accounted for a larger share of deaths.

Why this matters on shift

Patients living longer with Duchenne muscular dystrophy may need sustained respiratory support plus ongoing cardiac and multisystem surveillance across care transitions.

Bedside takeaway

Verify each patient's established respiratory and cardiac plan during admissions and care transitions.

Nursing implications

During admissions and handoffs, verify the established ventilation, airway-clearance, and cardiac-monitoring plan and coordinate concerns with the multidisciplinary team.

Limitations & cautions

Abstract-only summary. This was a study-level meta-analysis of heterogeneous observational survival reports; the ventilated and non-ventilated groups were not randomized, so associations should not be interpreted as treatment effects.
AI-summarized from the linked source. Review the original article before applying to practice.

Citations · exact source links

Journal of neurology (PubMed). Improving survival in Duchenne muscular dystrophy across eras: a systematic review and cumulative meta-analysis.

Open original sourceFull brief

AI-summarized from the linked source. Review the original article before applying to practice.

How This Applies in Practice

Key takeaways

Practice implications

Limitations & cautions

Exact source links

More updates for this clinical area

Low-risk birth-center births showed no higher neonatal mortality in a 10-year analysis

IV pantoprazole did not improve vomiting or oral tolerance in pediatric gastroenteritis

Duchenne survival has improved as respiratory and cardiac care evolved