| Literature DB >> 25811904 |
Hosein Dalili1, Firouzeh Nili2, Mahdi Sheikh1, Amir Kamal Hardani2, Mamak Shariat1, Fatemeh Nayeri1.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To compare the Conventional, Specified, Expanded and Combined Apgar scoring systems in predicting birth asphyxia and the adverse early neurologic outcomes.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2015 PMID: 25811904 PMCID: PMC4374718 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0122116
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
The Conventional-Apgar scoring system as introduced by Virginia Apgar in 1953.
| Sign | The Score | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 0 | 1 | 2 | |
|
| Absent | Less than 100 | More than 100 |
|
| Absent | Slow, irregular | Good, Crying |
|
| Limp | Some flexion | Active motion |
|
| No response | Grimace | Cough, sneeze, cry |
|
| Blue or pale | Pink body, blue extremities | Completely pink |
Fig 1The Combined-Apgar scoring system, consists of the Expanded and Specified Apgar scoring systems.
In 2012 the Combined-Apgar score was introduced by Rudiger et al.
The Sarnat chart for the staging of the severity of hypoxic ischemic encephalopathy as introduced by Sarnat H.B and Sarnat M.S. in 1976.
| Severity | Stage 1 (Mild) | Stage 2 (Moderate) | Stage 3 (Severe) |
|---|---|---|---|
|
| Hyperalert | Lethargic or Obtunded | Stupor or coma |
|
| Normal | Decreased | Absent |
|
| |||
| Muscle Tone | Normal | Mild hypotonia | Flaccid |
| Posture | Mild distal flexion | Strong distal flexion | Intermittent decerebration |
| Stretch Reflexes | Overactive | Overactive | Decreased or absent |
|
| |||
| Suck | Weak | Weak or absent | Absent |
| Moro (Startle) | Strong | Weak | Absent |
| Tonic neck | Slight | Strong | Absent |
|
| |||
| Pupils | Mydriasis | Miosis | Variable |
| Heart Rate | Tachycardia | Bradycardia | Variable |
|
| None | Common | Uncommon |
Pearson correlation coefficient showing the association between different Apgar scores and cord blood gas parameters.
| The Scoring System | pH | PO2 | PCO2 | HCO3 | Base Deficit |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| |||||
| r = 0.13 | r = 0.07 | r = - 0.11 | r = 0.14 | r = - 0.23 | |
| P = 0.008 | P = 0.14 | P = 0.03 | P = 0.7 | P = 0.000 | |
|
| |||||
| r = 0.18 | r = 0.13 | r = - 0.11 | r = - 0.05 | r = - 0.29 | |
| P = 0.000 | P = 0.01 | P = 0.03 | P = 0.27 | P = 0.000 | |
|
| |||||
| r = 0.24 | r = 0.11 | r = - 0.16 | r = - 0.04 | r = 0.31 | |
| P = 0.000 | P = 0.02 | P = 0.002 | P = 0.37 | P = 0.000 | |
|
| |||||
| r = 0.31 | r = 0.12 | r = - 0.2 | r = 0.02 | r = 0.32 | |
| P = 0.000 | P = 0.01 | P = 0.000 | P = 0.61 | P = 0.000 | |
*: P value less than 0.05
Fig 2ROC curve showing the sensitivity and Specificity of Conventional, Specified, Expanded and Combined Apgar scores in predicting birth asphyxia.
Comparison of the four proposed Apgar scores in predicting birth asphyxia.
| Sensitivity | Specificity | PPV | NPV | LR + | LR - | AUC | 95%CI | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| 81% | 81% | 73.3% | 92.8% | 4.26 | 0.23 | 0.887 | 0.83–0.94 |
|
| 67% | 95% | 55.7% | 96.5% | 13.4 | 0.34 | 0.949 | 0.92–0.97 |
|
| 95% | 97% | 79.1% | 98.7% | 31.6 | 0.05 | 0.991 | 0.98–0.99 |
|
| 97% | 99% | 93.1% | 99.7% | 97 | 0.03 | 0.999 | 0.99–1.00 |
PPV: Positive Predictive Value
NPV: Negative Predictive Value
LR +: Likelihood Ration for positive results
LR-: Likelihood Ration for negative results
AUC: Area Under the Curve
95%CI: 95% Confidence Interval