Automated intermittent olfactory stimulation to reduce apnea in preterm infants: results of the PREMODEUR randomized

Hélène Gauthier-Moulinier1, Huu Kim An Nguyen1,2, Claire Fischer3,4,5

  • 1Service de Néonatologie Et de Réanimation Néonatale, Hôpital Femme Mère Enfant, Hospices Civils de Lyon, Lyon, France.

Insights

Automated intermittent olfactory stimulation did not significantly reduce apnea episodes in preterm infants. Further research is needed to confirm if this method can effectively treat apnea of prematurity.

Area of Science:

  • Neonatal Medicine
  • Respiratory Physiology
  • Sensory Stimulation

Background:

  • Apnea of prematurity is a common complication in very preterm infants.
  • Olfactory stimulation is a proposed non-pharmacological approach to reduce apnea episodes.
  • Previous studies had methodological limitations, including small sample sizes and heterogeneous protocols.

Purpose of the Study:

  • To evaluate the efficacy of automated intermittent olfactory stimulation in reducing central apnea in preterm infants.
  • To assess the feasibility of automated intermittent olfactory stimulation in a neonatal intensive care setting.
  • To inform the design of future, larger trials.

Main Methods:

  • Randomized Latin-square crossover trial (PREMODEUR study).
  • Inclusion of 15 preterm infants (born <33 weeks gestation) with respiratory instability.
  • Three 24-h conditions: no stimulation, sham stimulation, and olfactory stimulation (mint, grapefruit, vanilla).

Main Results:

  • Primary analysis showed no significant difference in apnea incidence between sham and olfactory stimulation (IRR=1.04, p=0.689).
  • An exploratory post hoc analysis excluding one participant suggested a potential reduction in apnea incidence with olfactory stimulation (IRR=0.76, p=0.0254).
  • No adverse events were observed during the study.

Conclusions:

  • Automated intermittent olfactory stimulation did not significantly reduce apnea incidence in the primary analysis.
  • A modest treatment effect cannot be excluded due to the limited sample size.
  • Exploratory findings require cautious interpretation and do not provide confirmatory evidence of efficacy.

Related Concept Videos