You are here

Article Text

Article menu
Download PDFPDF
Key publications in paediatrics: Picket
Lower glucose treatment threshold could be as safe as the traditional threshold in hypoglycaemic neonates
  1. Kirsty Gray1,
  2. Rebecca Dalrymple2,
  3. Andrew Brunton3
  1. 1 Royal Hospital for Children, Glasgow, UK
  2. 2 Royal Alexandra Hospital, Paisley, Renfrewshire, UK
  3. 3 Neonatology, Royal Hospital for Children Glasgow, Glasgow, UK
  1. Correspondence to Dr Kirsty Gray, Royal Hospital for Children, Glasgow G51 4TF, UK; kirsty.gray5{at}nhs.net

https://doi.org/10.1136/archdischild-2020-319938

Statistics from Altmetric.com

    Request Permissions

    If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

    Review of: Van Kempen AAMW, Eskes PF, Nuytemans DHGM, et al. Lower versus traditional treatment thresholds for neonatal hypoglycaemia. N Engl J Med 2020;382:534–44

    Allocation: 1:1 web-based block randomisation, stratified according to study centre and high-risk patient subgroup (preterm; small for gestational age; large for gestational ages; mothers with diabetes).

    Design: The Hypoglycemia-Expectant Monitoring versus Intensive Treatment (HypoEXIT) trial was a multicentre, randomised, non-inferiority trial.

    Setting: 17 academic or teaching hospitals in the Netherlands.

    Patients: 689 otherwise healthy newborns born at 35 weeks gestation or later and identified as being at risk for hypoglycaemia.

    Intervention: Treatment of blood glucose levels lower than 36 mg per decilitre (2.0 mmol/L).

    Comparison: Treatment of blood glucose levels lower than 47 mg per decilitre (2.6 mmol/L).

    Primary outcomes: Psychomotor development at 18 months, as measured by the Bayley Scales of Infant and Toddler Development. Bailey composite scores have a mean of …

    View Full Text

    Footnotes

    • Contributors The abstract was written by KG. The commentary was written by RD and edited by AB.

    • Competing interests None declared.

    • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; internally peer reviewed.