NeoSHARK: Anatomical Versus Round Facemasks for Breathing Support in Preterm and Term Newborn Infants

Trial statusRecruiting
Trial phaseNot applicable
Trial typeInterventional
Biological sexAll
AgeNot listed
SponsorUniversity College Dublin

About this trial

When babies can't breathe effectively, we can use a facemask to give them breaths and oxygen. There are various types of facemasks that can be used, including round and anatomical (triangular) masks, depending on the preference of the hospital, but it is unclear if one is better for the baby. Both types of facemasks are recommended in international guidelines, without any advice whether one is better than the other. Previous studies published by our research group demonstrated that a variety of different masks are used around the hospitals in Ireland. If a lot of air is leaking around the mask, it means that the baby is not getting the full breathing support that we are trying to give. We currently do not have enough evidence to say which type of mask is better to reduce the risk of this potential leaking of air.

Recent studies have suggested that holding a mask with two hands (instead of one) is better in round facemasks. The combination of an anatomical mask and a two-handed hold has not yet been studied in babies.

In this study, we will compare two different facemasks (round and anatomical) when holding the mask on a baby's face with two hands to help them breathe. We will randomly allocate each baby to either a round mask or an anatomical (triangular) mask and we will measure how much air leaks out around the mask during each breath. We will do this in babies who are in the neonatal unit.

Eligibility criteria

This trial does not accept healthy volunteers

Qualifiers

All term and preterm neonates in the neonatal unit who the clinical team have decided to intubate, with or without pre-medication, and who require mask ventilation prior to intubation attempt.

Disqualifiers

Neonates with a congenital malformation that would impact mask seal will not be included.

Trial design

Design model

Parallel

Treatments tested in this trial

  • Intervention: Anatomical facemask

    Device

    Anatomical facemask, with a two-handed hold, to deliver positive pressure ventilation via a mask.

  • Control: Round facemask

    Device

    Round facemask, with a two-handed hold, to deliver positive pressure ventilation via a mask.

Treatment groups

50 Participants
are divided into 2 treatment groups
Group A: Intervention: Anatomical facemaskExperimental treatment 1 intervention
Group B: Control: Round facemaskActive comparator 1 intervention

Trial outcomes

Primary outcomes

1

Mask leak

Mask leak percentage, as measured by the Monivent Respiratory Function Monitor (RFM), with a minimum of 5 breaths collected. Maximum of 2 episodes of facemask ventilation will be collected, with values averaged.

Time frame
Over a maximum of 20 minutes

Secondary outcomes

1

Lowest oxygen saturation

Lowest oxygen saturation detected on the bedside clinical monitoring (Philips Intellivue MX800) during the period of facemask ventilation, recorded by a member of the research team.

Time frame
Over a maximum of 20 minutes
2

Highest supplemental FiO2 used during facemask ventilation

Highest percentage FiO2 used during the period of facemask ventilation, as indicated by the set dial on the Neopuff.

Time frame
Over a maximum of 20 minutes
3

Positive inspiratory pressure during facemask ventilation

Positive inspiratory pressure used during the period of facemask ventilation, as measured by the Monivent Neo100 respiratory function monitor.

Time frame
Over a maximum of 20 minutes
4

Percentage of obstructed breaths during facemask ventilation

Percentage of obstructed breaths during the period of facemask ventilation, as measured by the Monivent Neo100 respiratory function monitor.

Time frame
Over a maximum of 20 minutes

Other outcomes

Sponsors and contacts

Click on the lead sponsor to view all of their trials.