• D A Osborn and D J Henderson-Smart.
• Department of Neonatal Medicine, Royal Prince Alfred Hospital, Missenden Rd, Camperdown, Sydney, NSW, Australia, 2050. davido@peri.rpa.cs.nsw.gov.au
• Cochrane Db Syst Rev. 2000 Jan 1; 1999 (2): CD000499CD000499.

BackgroundThis section is under preparation and will be included in the next issue.ObjectivesMain question: in preterm infants with apnea, does the use of kinesthetic stimulation lead to clinically important reductions in clinical apnea and bradycardia (>50% reduction in number of episodes), use of mechanical ventilation (IPPV) or continuous positive airways pressure (CPAP), and neurodevelopmental disability, without clinically important side effects.Search StrategyThe standard search strategy of the Neonatal Review Group was used. This included searches of the Oxford Database of Perinatal Trials, Cochrane Controlled Trials Register, MEDLINE, previous reviews including cross references, abstracts, conferences, symposia proceedings, expert informants, and journal handsearching mainly in the English language.Selection CriteriaAll trials using random or quasi-random patient allocation in which kinesthetic stimulation in preterm infants was compared to placebo or no treatment for apnea of prematurity were included.Data Collection And AnalysisStandard methods of the Cochrane Collaboration and its Neonatal Review Group were used with separate evaluation of trial quality, data extraction by both authors and synthesis of data using relative risk and weighted mean difference. As all three trials were crossover trials, the data were extracted from all exposure periods and combined where appropriate. Measures of severity of apnea as well as the response to treatment were consistent with an evaluation of 'clinical apnea', as defined by the American Academy of Pediatrics (Nelson 1978).Main ResultsThree crossover studies (Korner 1978, Tuck 1982 and Jirapaet 1993) were identified that compared a form of kinesthetic stimulation to control for the treatment of apnea of prematurity. Clinically significant apnea: None of the three studies showed an important reduction (>50%) in clinical apnea. Using a lower threshold (>25%), the study by Korner 1978 found less apnea and bradycardia in infants receiving kinesthetic stimulation. Tuck 1982 demonstrated reductions in the frequencies of apneas (> 12 seconds) associated with bradycardia (< 100 bpm), apneas associated with hypoxia (TcP02 < 50 mmHg), and apneas requiring stimulation in infants on the rocking bed. Individual patient data were not available from the author to determine if there was an important reduction in clinical apnea. No outcome could be extracted from the study by Jirapaet 1993 that was consistent with the definition of clinically important apnea. Other events: No significant differences were found in the incidence of infants requiring resuscitation, IPPV, CPAP or respiratory stimulants whilst receiving treatment. Adverse events such as death, intraventricular hemorrhage and neurodevelopmental follow up were not reported.Reviewer's ConclusionsThere is insufficient evidence to recommend kinesthetic stimulation as treatment for clinically significant apnea of prematurity. Previous reviews have suggested that kinesthetic stimulation is not effective at preventing apnea of prematurity (Henderson-Smart and Osborn 1998) and is not as effective as theophylline at treating clinically significant apnea of prematurity (Osborn and Henderson-Smart 1998).

14 keywords...

hide…