Literature DB >> 21815125

Prediction of neonatal metabolic acidosis in women with a singleton term pregnancy in cephalic presentation.

Michelle E M H Westerhuis1, Ewoud Schuit, Anneke Kwee, Nicolaas P A Zuithoff, Rolf H H Groenwold, Eline S A Van Den Akker, Erik Van Beek, Hendrikus J H M Van Dessel, Addy P Drogtrop, Herman P Van Geijn, Guiseppe C M Graziosi, Jan M M Van Lith, Jan G Nijhuis, S Guid Oei, Herman P Oosterbaan, Martina M Porath, Robert J P Rijnders, Nico W E Schuitemaker, Lia D E Wijnberger, Christine Willekes, Maurice G A J Wouters, Gerard H A Visser, Ben Willem J Mol, Karel G M Moons.   

Abstract

We sought to predict neonatal metabolic acidosis at birth using antepartum obstetric characteristics (model 1) and additional characteristics available during labor (model 2). In 5667 laboring women from a multicenter randomized trial that had a high-risk singleton pregnancy in cephalic presentation beyond 36 weeks of gestation, we predicted neonatal metabolic acidosis. Based on literature and clinical reasoning, we selected both antepartum characteristics and characteristics that became available during labor. After univariable analyses, the predictors of the multivariable models were identified by backward stepwise selection in a logistic regression analysis. Model performance was assessed by discrimination and calibration. To correct for potential overfitting, we (internally) validated the models with bootstrapping techniques. Of 5667 neonates born alive, 107 (1.9%) had metabolic acidosis. Antepartum predictors of metabolic acidosis were gestational age, nulliparity, previous cesarean delivery, and maternal diabetes. Additional intrapartum predictors were spontaneous onset of labor and meconium-stained amniotic fluid. Calibration and discrimination were acceptable for both models (c-statistic 0.64 and 0.66, respectively). In women with a high-risk singleton term pregnancy in cephalic presentation, we identified antepartum and intrapartum factors that predict neonatal metabolic acidosis at birth.
Copyright © 2012 by Thieme Medical Publishers, Inc.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2011        PMID: 21815125     DOI: 10.1055/s-0031-1284226

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Am J Perinatol        ISSN: 0735-1631            Impact factor:   1.862


  6 in total

1.  Unexpected predictor-outcome associations in clinical prediction research: causes and solutions.

Authors:  Ewoud Schuit; Rolf H H Groenwold; Frank E Harrell; Wim L A M de Kort; Anneke Kwee; Ben Willem J Mol; Richard D Riley; Karel G M Moons
Journal:  CMAJ       Date:  2013-01-21       Impact factor: 8.262

2.  Identification of peripartum near-miss for perinatal audit.

Authors:  C Kerkhofs; C De Bruyn; T Mesens; C Theyskens; M Vanhoestenberghe; E Bruneel; C Van Holsbeke; A Bonnaerens; W Gyselaers
Journal:  Facts Views Vis Obgyn       Date:  2014

3.  Intrapartum Fetal Heart Rate: A Possible Predictor of Neonatal Acidemia and APGAR Score.

Authors:  Thâmila Kamila de Souza Medeiros; Mirela Dobre; Daniela Monteiro Baptista da Silva; Andrei Brateanu; Ovidiu Constantin Baltatu; Luciana Aparecida Campos
Journal:  Front Physiol       Date:  2018-10-22       Impact factor: 4.566

4.  Development and validation of prediction models for risk of adverse outcomes in women with early-onset pre-eclampsia: protocol of the prospective cohort PREP study.

Authors:  John Allotey; Nadine Marlin; Ben W Mol; Peter Von Dadelszen; Wessel Ganzevoort; Joost Akkermans; Asif Ahmed; Jane Daniels; Jon Deeks; Khaled Ismail; Ann Marie Barnard; Julie Dodds; Sally Kerry; Carl Moons; Khalid S Khan; Richard D Riley; Shakila Thangaratinam
Journal:  Diagn Progn Res       Date:  2017-02-20

5.  Retrospective study on the possible existence of a treatment paradox in sepsis scores in the emergency department.

Authors:  Jan Willem Uffen; Harriet van Goor; Johannes Reitsma; Jan Jelrik Oosterheert; Marieke de Regt; Karin Kaasjager
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2021-03-11       Impact factor: 2.692

6.  Performance of binary prediction models in high-correlation low-dimensional settings: a comparison of methods.

Authors:  Artuur M Leeuwenberg; Maarten van Smeden; Johannes A Langendijk; Arjen van der Schaaf; Murielle E Mauer; Karel G M Moons; Johannes B Reitsma; Ewoud Schuit
Journal:  Diagn Progn Res       Date:  2022-01-11
  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.