Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Background: Effective neonatal resuscitation requires integrated thermal support, respiratory assistance, and continuous physiological monitoring. MINAR™, a locally manufactured infant warmer resuscitator developed in Indonesia, was designed to support neonatal stabilization. This study evaluated the clinical feasibility, safety, and non-inferiority of MINAR™ compared with the Dräger Resuscitaire ® . Methods: This single-center, randomized, non-inferiority feasibility trial allocated live-born neonates requiring postnatal resuscitation or stabilization in a 1:1 ratio to MINAR™ or Dräger Resuscitaire ® . Primary outcomes included respiratory rate (RR), heart rate (HR), peripheral oxygen saturation (SpO 2 ), body temperature, Apgar score, and Downes score measured at baseline and 5, 10, 15, and 60 min. Minimum clinically important differences were predefined. Repeated-measures ANCOVA was performed to assess the potential confounding effect of baseline Downes score. Results: Forty-eight neonates were enrolled, and 38 were included in the final analysis (MINAR™, n = 18; Dräger Resuscitaire ® , n = 20). Baseline characteristics were comparable except for a higher baseline Downes score in the Dräger group ( p = 0.004). MINAR™ demonstrated non-inferior performance across all predefined outcomes with no differences exceeding the non-inferiority margins. After adjustment for baseline respiratory distress, MINAR™ remained associated with faster improvement in oxygen saturation and greater reduction in Downes score, whereas RR, HR, body temperature, and Apgar score showed comparable longitudinal trajectories between groups. No device-related adverse events or malfunctions were observed. Conclusions: MINAR™ demonstrated feasibility, safety, and non-inferior clinical performance compared with the Dräger Resuscitaire ® for neonatal postnatal stabilization. The observed advantages in oxygenation and respiratory distress remained independent of baseline respiratory severity, supporting further evaluation in larger multicenter randomized trials.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Sudjud et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: