Noise or sound management in the neonatal intensive care unit for preterm or very low birth weight infants.

Infants in the neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) are subjected to different types of stress, including sounds of high intensity. The sound levels in NICUs often exceed the maximum acceptable level recommended by the American Academy of Pediatrics, which is 45 decibels (dB). Hearing impairment is diagnosed in 2% to 10% of preterm infants compared to only 0.1% of the general paediatric population. Bringing sound levels under 45 dB can be achieved by lowering the sound levels in an entire unit; by treating the infant in a section of a NICU, in a 'private' room, or in incubators in which the sound levels are controlled; or by reducing sound levels at the individual level using earmuffs or earplugs. By lowering sound levels, the resulting stress can be diminished, thereby promoting growth and reducing adverse neonatal outcomes. This review is an update of one originally published in 2015 and first updated in 2020. To determine the benefits and harms of sound reduction on the growth and long-term neurodevelopmental outcomes of neonates. We used standard, extensive Cochrane search methods. On 21 and 22 August 2023, a Cochrane Information Specialist searched CENTRAL, PubMed, Embase, two other databases, two trials registers, and grey literature via Google Scholar and conference abstracts from Pediatric Academic Societies. We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) or quasi-RCTs in preterm infants (less than 32 weeks' postmenstrual age (PMA) or less than 1500 g birth weight) cared for in the resuscitation area, during transport, or once admitted to a NICU or stepdown unit. We specified three types of intervention: 1) intervention at the unit level (i.e. the entire neonatal department), 2) at the section or room level, or 3) at the individual level (e.g. hearing protection). We used the standardised review methods of Cochrane Neonatal to assess the risk of bias in the studies. We used the risk ratio (RR) and risk difference (RD), with their 95% confidence intervals (CIs), for dichotomous data. We used the mean difference (MD) for continuous data. Our primary outcome was major neurodevelopmental disability. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence. We included one RCT, which enroled 34 newborn infants randomised to the use of silicone earplugs versus no earplugs for hearing protection. It was a single-centre study conducted at the University of Texas Medical School in Houston, Texas, USA. Earplugs were positioned at the time of randomisation and worn continuously until the infants were 35 weeks' postmenstrual age (PMA) or discharged (whichever came first). Newborns in the control group received standard care. The evidence is very uncertain about the effects of silicone earplugs on the following outcomes. • Cerebral palsy (RR 3.00, 95% CI 0.15 to 61.74)and Mental Developmental Index (MDI) (Bayley II) at 18 to 22 months' corrected age (MD 14.00, 95% CI 3.13 to 24.87); no other indicators of major neurodevelopmental disability were reported. • Normal auditory functioning at discharge (RR 1.65, 95% CI 0.93 to 2.94) • All-cause mortality during hospital stay (RR 2.07, 95% CI 0.64 to 6.70; RD 0.20, 95% CI -0.09 to 0.50) • Weight (kg) at 18 to 22 months' corrected age (MD 0.31, 95% CI -1.53 to 2.16) • Height (cm) at 18 to 22 months' corrected age (MD 2.70, 95% CI -3.13 to 8.53) • Days of assisted ventilation (MD -1.44, 95% CI -23.29 to 20.41) • Days of initial hospitalisation (MD 1.36, 95% CI -31.03 to 33.75) For all outcomes, we judged the certainty of evidence as very low. We identified one ongoing RCT that will compare the effects of reduced noise levels and cycled light on visual and neural development in preterm infants. No studies evaluated interventions to reduce sound levels below 45 dB across the whole neonatal unit or in a room within it. We found only one study that evaluated the benefits of sound reduction in the neonatal intensive care unit for hearing protection in preterm infants. The study compared the use of silicone earplugs versus no earplugs in newborns of very low birth weight (less than 1500 g). Considering the very small sample size, imprecise results, and high risk of attrition bias, the evidence based on this research is very uncertain and no conclusions can be drawn. As there is a lack of evidence to inform healthcare or policy decisions, large, well designed, well conducted, and fully reported RCTs that analyse different aspects of noise reduction in NICUs are needed. They should report both short- and long-term outcomes.

Sibrecht G ，Wróblewska-Seniuk K ，Bruschettini M 《Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews》

Cycled light in the intensive care unit for preterm and low birth weight infants.

Preterm and low birth weight infants are at an early stage of development, and do not receive adequate maternal circadian signals. They are often cared for over prolonged periods of hospitalisation in neonatal intensive care units (NICU), where environmental circadian stimuli are lacking. Exposure to artificial light-dark cycles may stimulate the development of the circadian system and improve clinical outcomes. However, it remains uncertain whether cycled light (CL) is preferable to near darkness (ND) or continuous bright light (CBL) in fostering development and maturation, and reducing adverse neonatal health outcomes. This is an update of an earlier Cochrane review, last published in 2016. To evaluate the benefits and harms of CL in preterm and low birth weight infants compared to ND or CBL. We searched CENTRAL, PubMed, Embase, and two trial registries to September 2023. We also checked reference lists, and searched for retractions of included studies. We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) or quasi-RCTs in preterm infants (< 37 weeks' postmenstrual age (PMA)), or those with a low birth weight (< 2500 g), admitted and cared for in an NICU or a step-down unit, comparing CL with ND or CBL. We used the standard review methods of the Cochrane Neonatal Review Group to assess the methodological quality of studies. We used the fixed-effect model with risk ratio (RR) and mean difference (MD), with their 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for dichotomous data. Our primary outcomes were (1) growth at three and six months' corrected age, (2) major neurodevelopmental disability, and (3) adverse effects. Our secondary outcomes were (4) retinopathy of prematurity, (5) duration of initial hospitalisation, (6) duration of oxygen treatment, and (7) parent satisfaction. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of evidence for each outcome. We included 20 studies with 1633 infants. Data for meta-analysis were available for 11 studies (1126 infants). One study with multiple arms was included in both comparisons. We rated the overall risk of bias at the study level as high or unclear for all 20 studies that had one or several unclear or high risk of bias judgements across the domains. Cycled light versus dimmed light or near darkness (10 studies) The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of cycled light compared to dimmed light (reduction of illumination levels) or near darkness on weight at three months (MD 24.79, 95% CI -262.33 to 311.91; 2 studies, 187 infants; very low-certainty evidence), and weight at six months (MD 202, 95% CI -109.68 to 513.68; 1 study, 147 infants; very low-certainty evidence). The studies did not report any data for major neurodevelopmental disability. No data are available for adverse effects; it is uncertain if the absence of adverse effects is because none occurred, or because they were not identified and recorded. The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of cycled light compared to dimmed light or near darkness on the likelihood of developing retinopathy of prematurity of any stage (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.03; 3 studies, 307 infants; very low-certainty evidence), and severe retinopathy of prematurity of stage 3 or higher (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.59 to 1.61; 4 studies, 454 infants; very low-certainty evidence). Cycled light compared to dimmed light or near darkness may have little to no effect on the duration of initial hospitalisation (MD -3.04, 95% CI -7.86 to 1.78; 5 studies, 550 infants; very low-certainty evidence), but the evidence is very uncertain. Cycled light versus continuous bright light (11 studies) No data are available on the following primary outcomes, as no studies reported them: growth at three and six months' corrected age, major neurodevelopmental disability, and adverse effects. It is uncertain if the absence of adverse effects is because none occurred or because they were not identified and recorded. No data are available on retinopathy of prematurity, as no studies reported it. Cycled light compared to continuous bright light may reduce the duration of initial hospitalisation, but the evidence is very uncertain (MD -9.86, 95% CI -10.09 to -9.63; 5 studies, 499 infants; very low-certainty evidence). Despite identifying 20 studies, we remain uncertain about the effect of CL compared to ND or CBL on all outcomes of interest in this review. In addition, a few critical outcomes were not reported by any of the included studies. The evidence remains uncertain about whether CL is the right choice in the NICU. The physician should always weigh the benefits and risks, based on the effects of the different options in the specific setting.

Morag I ，Xiao YT ，Bruschettini M 《Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews》

Treatment for women with postpartum iron deficiency anaemia.

Postpartum iron deficiency anaemia is caused by antenatal iron deficiency or excessive blood loss at delivery and might affect up to 50% of labouring women in low- and middle-income countries. Effective and safe treatment during early motherhood is important for maternal well-being and newborn care. Treatment options include oral iron supplementation, intravenous iron, erythropoietin, and red blood cell transfusion. To assess the benefits and harms of the available treatment modalities for women with postpartum iron deficiency anaemia. These include intravenous iron, oral iron supplementation, red blood cell transfusion, and erythropoietin. A Cochrane Information Specialist searched for all published, unpublished, and ongoing trials, without language or publication status restrictions. We searched databases including CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, LILACS, WHO ICTRP, and ClinicalTrials.gov, together with reference checking, citation searching, and contact with study authors to identify eligible studies. We applied date limits to retrieve new records since the last search on 9 April 2015 until 11 April 2024. We included published, unpublished, and ongoing randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared treatments for postpartum iron deficiency anaemia with placebo, no treatment, or alternative treatments. Cluster-randomised trials were eligible for inclusion. We included RCTs regardless of blinding. Participants were women with postpartum haemoglobin ≤ 12 g/dL, treated within six weeks after childbirth. We excluded non-randomised, quasi-randomised, and cross-over trials. The critical outcomes of this review were maternal mortality and fatigue. The important outcomes included persistent anaemia symptoms, persistent postpartum anaemia, psychological well-being, infections, compliance with treatment, breastfeeding, length of hospital stay, serious adverse events, anaphylaxis or evidence of hypersensitivity, flushing/Fishbane reaction, injection discomfort/reaction, constipation, gastrointestinal pain, number of red blood cell transfusions, and haemoglobin levels. We assessed risk of bias in the included studies using the Cochrane RoB 1 tool. Two review authors independently performed study screening, risk of bias assessment, and data extraction. We contacted trial authors for supplementary data when necessary. We screened all trials for trustworthiness and scientific integrity using the Cochrane Trustworthiness Screening Tool. We conducted meta-analyses using a fixed-effect model whenever feasible to synthesise outcomes. In cases where data were not suitable for meta-analysis, we provided a narrative summary of important findings. We evaluated the overall certainty of the evidence using GRADE. We included 33 RCTs with a total of 4558 postpartum women. Most trials were at high risk of bias for several risk of bias domains. Most of the evidence was of low or very low certainty. Imprecision due to few events and risk of bias due to lack of blinding were the most important factors. Intravenous iron versus oral iron supplementation The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of intravenous iron on mortality (risk ratio (RR) 2.95, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.12 to 71.96; P = 0.51; I² = not applicable; 3 RCTs; 1 event; 572 women; very low-certainty evidence). One woman died of cardiomyopathy, and another developed arrhythmia, both in the groups treated with intravenous iron. Intravenous iron probably results in a slight reduction in fatigue within 8 to 28 days (standardised mean difference -0.25, 95% CI -0.42 to -0.07; P = 0.006; I² = 47%; 2 RCTs; 515 women; moderate-certainty evidence). Breastfeeding was not reported. Oral iron probably increases the risk of constipation compared to intravenous iron (RR 0.12, 95% CI 0.06 to 0.21; P < 0.001; I² = 0%; 10 RCTs; 1798 women; moderate-certainty evidence). The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of intravenous iron on anaphylaxis or hypersensitivity (RR 2.77, 95% CI 0.31 to 24.86; P = 0.36; I² = 0%; 12 RCTs; 2195 women; very low-certainty evidence). Three women treated with intravenous iron experienced anaphylaxis or hypersensitivity. The trials that reported on haemoglobin at 8 to 28 days were too heterogeneous to pool. However, 5 of 6 RCTs favoured intravenous iron, with mean changes in haemoglobin ranging from 0.73 to 2.10 g/dL (low-certainty evidence). Red blood cell transfusion versus intravenous iron No women died in the only trial that reported on mortality (1 RCT; 7 women; very low-certainty evidence). The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of red blood cell transfusion on fatigue at 8 to 28 days (mean difference (MD) 1.20, 95% CI -2.41 to 4.81; P = 0.51; I² = not applicable; 1 RCT; 13 women; very low-certainty evidence) and breastfeeding more than six weeks postpartum (RR 0.43, 95% CI 0.12 to 1.57; P = 0.20; I² = not applicable; 1 RCT; 13 women; very low-certainty evidence). Constipation and anaphylaxis were not reported. Red blood cell transfusion may result in little to no difference in haemoglobin within 8 to 28 days (MD -1.00, 95% CI -2.02 to 0.02; P = 0.05; I² = not applicable; 1 RCT; 12 women; low-certainty evidence). Intravenous iron and oral iron supplementation versus oral iron supplementation Mortality and breastfeeding were not reported. One trial reported a greater improvement in fatigue in the intravenous and oral iron group, but the effect size could not be calculated (1 RCT; 128 women; very low-certainty evidence). Intravenous iron and oral iron may result in a reduction in constipation compared to oral iron alone (RR 0.21, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.69; P = 0.01; I² = not applicable; 1 RCT; 128 women; low-certainty evidence). There were no anaphylaxis or hypersensitivity events in the trials (2 RCTs; 168 women; very low-certainty evidence). Intravenous iron and oral iron may result in little to no difference in haemoglobin (g/dL) at 8 to 28 days (MD 0.00, 95% CI -0.48 to 0.48; P = 1.00; I² = not applicable; 1 RCT; 60 women; low-certainty evidence). Red blood cell transfusion versus no transfusion Mortality, fatigue at day 8 to 28, constipation, anaphylaxis, and haemoglobin were not reported. Red blood cell transfusion may result in little to no difference in breastfeeding more than six weeks postpartum (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.07; P = 0.24; I² = not applicable; 1 RCT; 297 women; low-certainty evidence). Oral iron supplementation versus placebo or no treatment Mortality, fatigue, breastfeeding, constipation, anaphylaxis, and haemoglobin were not reported. Two trials reported on gastrointestinal symptoms, but did not report results by study arm. Intravenous iron probably reduces fatigue slightly in the early postpartum weeks (8 to 28 days) compared to oral iron tablets, but probably results in little to no difference after four weeks. It is very uncertain if intravenous iron has an effect on mortality and anaphylaxis/hypersensitivity. Breastfeeding was not reported. Intravenous iron may increase haemoglobin slightly more than iron tablets, but the data were too heterogeneous to pool. However, changes in haemoglobin levels are a surrogate outcome, and treatment decisions should preferentially be based on patient-relevant outcomes. Iron tablets probably result in a large increase in constipation compared to intravenous iron. The effect of red blood cell transfusion compared to intravenous iron on mortality, fatigue, and breastfeeding is very uncertain. No studies reported on constipation or anaphylaxis/hypersensitivity. Red blood cell transfusion may result in little to no difference in haemoglobin at 8 to 28 days. The effect of intravenous iron and oral iron supplementation on mortality, fatigue, breastfeeding, and anaphylaxis/hypersensitivity is very uncertain or unreported. Intravenous iron and oral iron may result in a reduction in constipation compared to oral iron alone, and in little to no difference in haemoglobin. The effect of red blood cell transfusion compared to non-transfusion on mortality, fatigue, constipation, anaphylaxis/hypersensitivity, and haemoglobin is unreported. Red blood cell transfusion may result in little to no difference in breastfeeding. The effect of oral iron supplementation on mortality, fatigue, breastfeeding, constipation, anaphylaxis/hypersensitivity, and haemoglobin is unreported. This Cochrane review had no dedicated funding. Protocol and previous versions are available: Protocol (2013) [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD010861] Original review (2004) [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD004222.pub2] Review update (2015) [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD010861.pub2].

Jensen MCH ，Holm C ，Jørgensen KJ ，Schroll JB ... -  《Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews》

Laryngeal mask airway surfactant administration for prevention of morbidity and mortality in preterm infants with or at risk of respiratory distress syndrome.

Laryngeal mask airway surfactant administration (S-LMA) has the potential benefit of surfactant administration whilst avoiding endotracheal intubation and ventilation, ventilator-induced lung injury and bronchopulmonary dysplasia (BPD). To evaluate the benefits and harms of S-LMA either as prophylaxis or treatment (rescue) compared to placebo, no treatment, or intratracheal surfactant administration via an endotracheal tube (ETT) with the intent to rapidly extubate (InSurE) or extubate at standard criteria (S-ETT) or via other less-invasive surfactant administration (LISA) methods on morbidity and mortality in preterm infants with or at risk of respiratory distress syndrome (RDS). We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, and three trial registries in December 2022. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs), cluster- or quasi-RCTs of S-LMA compared to placebo, no treatment, or other routes of administration (nebulised, pharyngeal instillation of surfactant before the first breath, thin endotracheal catheter surfactant administration or intratracheal surfactant instillation) on morbidity and mortality in preterm infants at risk of RDS. We considered published, unpublished and ongoing trials. Two review authors independently assessed studies for inclusion and extracted data. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence. We included eight trials (seven new to this update) recruiting 510 newborns. Five trials (333 infants) compared S-LMA with surfactant administration via ETT with InSurE. One trial (48 infants) compared S-LMA with surfactant administration via ETT with S-ETT, and two trials (129 infants) compared S-LMA with no surfactant administration. We found no studies comparing S-LMA with LISA techniques or prophylactic or early S-LMA. S-LMA versus surfactant administration via InSurE S-LMA may have little or no effect on the composite outcome of death or BPD at 36 weeks' postmenstrual age (risk ratio (RR) 1.50, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.27 to 8.34, I 2 = not applicable (NA) as 1 study had 0 events; risk difference (RD) 0.02, 95% CI -0.07 to 0.10; I 2 = 0%; 2 studies, 110 infants; low-certainty evidence). There may be a reduction in the need for mechanical ventilation at any time (RR 0.53, 95% CI 0.36 to 0.78; I 2 = 27%; RD -0.14, 95% CI -0.22 to -0.06, I 2 = 89%; number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) 7, 95% CI 5 to 17; 5 studies, 333 infants; low-certainty evidence). However, this was limited to four studies (236 infants) using analgesia or sedation for the InSurE group. There was little or no difference for air leak during first hospitalisation (RR 1.39, 95% CI 0.65 to 2.98; I 2 = 0%; 5 studies, 333 infants (based on 3 studies as 2 studies had 0 events); low-certainty evidence); BPD among survivors to 36 weeks' PMA (RR 1.28, 95% CI 0.47 to 3.52; I 2 = 0%; 4 studies, 264 infants (based on 3 studies as 1 study had 0 events); low-certainty evidence); or death (all causes) during the first hospitalisation (RR 0.28, 95% CI 0.01 to 6.60; I 2 = NA as 2 studies had 0 events; 3 studies, 203 infants; low-certainty evidence). Neurosensory disability was not reported. Intraventricular haemorrhage ( IVH) grades III and IV were reported among the study groups (1 study, 50 infants). S-LMA versus surfactant administration via S-ETT No study reported death or BPD at 36 weeks' PMA. S-LMA may reduce the use of mechanical ventilation at any time compared with S-ETT (RR 0.47, 95% CI 0.31 to 0.71; RD -0.54, 95% CI -0.74 to -0.34; NNTB 2, 95% CI 2 to 3; 1 study, 48 infants; low-certainty evidence). We are very uncertain whether S-LMA compared with S-ETT reduces air leak during first hospitalisation (RR 2.56, 95% CI 0.11 to 59.75), IVH grade III or IV (RR 2.56, 95% CI 0.11 to 59.75) and death (all causes) during the first hospitalisation (RR 0.17, 95% CI 0.01 to 3.37) (1 study, 48 infants; very low-certainty evidence). No study reported BPD to 36 weeks' PMA or neurosensory disability. S-LMA versus no surfactant administration Rescue surfactant could be used in both groups. There may be little or no difference in death or BPD at 36 weeks (RR 1.65, 95% CI 0.85 to 3.22; I 2 = 58%; RD 0.08, 95% CI -0.03 to 0.19; I 2 = 0%; 2 studies, 129 infants; low-certainty evidence). There was probably a reduction in the need for mechanical ventilation at any time with S-LMA compared with nasal continuous positive airway pressure without surfactant (RR 0.57, 95% CI 0.38 to 0.85; I 2 = 0%; RD -0.24, 95% CI -0.40 to -0.08; I 2 = 0%; NNTB 4, 95% CI 3 to 13; 2 studies, 129 infants; moderate-certainty evidence). There was little or no difference in air leak during first hospitalisation (RR 0.65, 95% CI 0.23 to 1.88; I 2 = 0%; 2 studies, 129 infants; low-certainty evidence) or BPD to 36 weeks' PMA (RR 1.65, 95% CI 0.85 to 3.22; I 2 = 58%; 2 studies, 129 infants; low-certainty evidence). There were no events in either group for death during the first hospitalisation (1 study, 103 infants) or IVH grade III and IV (1 study, 103 infants). No study reported neurosensory disability. In preterm infants less than 36 weeks' PMA, rescue S-LMA may have little or no effect on the composite outcome of death or BPD at 36 weeks' PMA. However, it may reduce the need for mechanical ventilation at any time. This benefit is limited to trials reporting the use of analgesia or sedation in the InSurE and S-ETT groups. There is low- to very-low certainty evidence for no or little difference in neonatal morbidities and mortality. Long-term outcomes are largely unreported. In preterm infants less than 32 weeks' PMA or less than 1500 g, there are insufficient data to support or refute the use of S-LMA in clinical practice. Adequately powered trials are required to determine the effect of S-LMA for prevention or early treatment of RDS in extremely preterm infants. S-LMA use should be limited to clinical trials in this group of infants.

Abdel-Latif ME ，Walker E ，Osborn DA 《Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews》

Cell salvage for the management of postpartum haemorrhage.

Postpartum haemorrhage (PPH), defined as a blood loss of 500 mL or more within 24 hours of birth, is the leading global cause of maternal morbidity and mortality. Allogenic blood transfusions are a critical component of PPH management, yet are often unfeasible, particularly in resource-poor settings where maternal morbidity is highest. Autologous cell salvage in the management of PPH has been proposed to combat limitations in access to allogenic blood and potential transfusion-related risks. This review examines the benefits and harms of using cell salvage for pregnant women during birth. To assess the benefits and harms of cell salvage when used during birth. We searched the CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Ovid Embase, and Global Index Medicus databases and the ICTRP and ClinicalTrials.gov trials registers. We also carried out reference checking and citation searching, and contacted study authors to identify all relevant studies. The latest search date was 8 February 2024. We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in pregnant women (24 weeks or more gestation) comparing use of cell salvage following caesarean or vaginal birth with routine care (defined as no cell salvage). We did not place any restrictions on mode of birth, ethnicity, race, socioeconomic status, education level, or place of residence. Critical outcomes for this review were risk of allogenic blood transfusion, risk of transfusion-related adverse reactions, risk of haemorrhage, transfer to higher level of care, length of hospitalisation, length of operation, and risk of sepsis. Important outcomes were estimated blood loss, blood loss ≥ 500 mL, blood loss ≥ 1000 mL, use of additional uterotonics or tranexamic acid, maternal death, postpartum haemoglobin concentration, change in haemoglobin, major surgery including hysterectomy, future major surgery, end-organ dysfunction or failure, amniotic fluid embolism, side effects, clotting abnormalities, maternal experience/satisfaction, maternal well-being, and breastfeeding. We assessed risk of bias using the Cochrane risk of bias tool (RoB 1) for each critical outcome from each RCT. We conducted a meta-analysis for each outcome where data were available from more than one study using a random-effects model. If data could not be analysed using meta-analysis, we synthesised results narratively using the Synthesis Without Meta-analysis (SWiM) guidance. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of evidence for each outcome. We included six RCTs with 3476 participants. All trials involved pregnant women having a caesarean birth. Three trials were conducted in high-income countries, and three were conducted in an upper-middle-income country. Allogenic blood transfusion Intraoperative cell salvage at caesarean birth may reduce the need for allogenic transfusions received by participants, although the 95% confidence interval (CI) includes the possibility of an increase in effect. Low-certainty evidence from three studies found the risk of donor transfusions was possibly lower in participants with cell salvage (risk ratio (RR) 0.45, 95% CI 0.15 to 1.33; P = 0.15, I2 = 33%; 3 RCTs, 3115 women; low-certainty evidence). The absolute risk of transfusion was very low in the studies (4% in women not treated with cell salvage and 2% in women treated with cell salvage). Transfusion-related adverse reactions The evidence is very uncertain about the risk of transfusion-related adverse reactions in participants with intraoperative cell salvage (RR 0.48, 95% CI 0.09 to 2.62; P = 0.39; 4 RCTs, 3304 women; very low-certainty evidence). Haemorrhage Two studies reported risk of haemorrhage and found that there was probably no difference between arms (RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.67 to 1.15; P = 0.36, I² = 0%; 2 RCTs, 3077 women; moderate-certainty evidence). Length of hospitalisation The evidence is very uncertain about whether interoperative cell salvage at caesarean birth affects length of hospitalisation. Three studies reported length of hospitalisation (MD -2.02 days, 95% CI -4.73 to 0.70; P = 0.15, I2 = 100%; 3 RCTs, 3174 women; very low-certainty evidence). Length of operation Two studies reported on length of operation. However, meta-analysis was not possible due to statistical heterogeneity and divergence of study findings; the direction of effect could not be determined. We evaluated the evidence as very low certainty. Sepsis One study reported risk of sepsis, finding that there was possibly no difference between arms (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.43 to 2.29; P = 0.99; 1 RCT, 2990 women; low-certainty evidence). Estimated blood loss Cell salvage at caesarean birth may reduce blood loss. Two studies reported that estimated blood loss was possibly lower in women who had cell salvage compared to those who did not (MD -113.59 mL, 95% CI -130.41 to -96.77; P < 0.00001, I2 = 0%; 2 RCTs, 246 women; low-certainty evidence). Postpartum haemoglobin concentration Cell salvage at caesarean birth may increase day one postpartum haemoglobin. Three studies reported day one postpartum haemoglobin levels (MD 6.14 g/L, 95% CI 1.62 to 10.65; P = 0.008, I2 = 97%; 3 RCTs, 3070 women; low-certainty evidence). Amniotic fluid embolism Three trials reported risk of amniotic fluid embolism and no cases were observed (n = 3226 women). Cell salvage may reduce the need for allogenic blood transfusion, may reduce blood loss, and may increase day one postpartum haemoglobin in pregnant women having caesarean birth (low certainty). Cell salvage may make little to no difference to the risk of sepsis (low certainty) and probably makes little to no difference to the risk of haemorrhage (moderate certainty). The effect of cell salvage on risk of transfusion-related adverse reactions is very uncertain. The effect of cell salvage on the length of hospital stay was both clinically and statistically heterogenous, with a very low certainty of evidence. The effect of cell salvage on length of operation is divergent and meta-analysis was not possible due to significant statistical heterogeneity; the evidence is of very low certainty. No cases of amniotic fluid embolism were reported among the included trials. Studies in low- and middle-income settings are needed. This review had no dedicated funding. This review was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42024554204).

Dey T ，Brown D ，Cole MG ，Hill RA ，Chaplin M ，Huffstetler HE ，Curtis F ... -  《Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews》