Maria J Zegers1, Chantal W P M Hukkelhoven2, Cuno S P M Uiterwaal3, Louis A A Kollée1, Floris Groenendaal4. 1. Department of Neonatology, Radboud University Medical Centre, Nijmegen, The Netherlands. 2. The Netherlands Perinatal Registry, Utrecht, The Netherlands. 3. Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Center, Utrecht, The Netherlands. 4. Wilhelmina Children's Hospital, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: In 2006, the Dutch guideline for active treatment of extremely preterm neonates advised to lower the gestational age threshold for active intervention from 26 0/7 to 25 0/7 weeks gestation. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the association between the guideline modification and early neonatal outcome. DESIGN: National cohort study, using prospectively collected data from The Netherlands Perinatal Registry. PATIENTS: The study population consisted of 9713 infants with a gestational age between 24 0/7 and 29 6/7 weeks, born between 2000 and 2011. Three gestational age subgroups were analysed: 24 0/7 to 24 6/7 weeks (n=269), 25 0/7 to 25 6/7 weeks (n=852) and 26 0/7 to 29 6/7 weeks (n=8592). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) admission, live births, neonatal in-hospital mortality, morbidity and favourable outcome (no mortality or morbidity) before (2000-2005; period 1) and after (2007-2011; period 2) introduction of the modified guideline, using χ(2) tests and univariable and multivariable logistic regression analyses. RESULTS: In the second period, the proportion of live births and NICU admissions increased and the proportion of neonatal and in-hospital mortality decreased significantly in all subgroups. Morbidity in surviving infants of 25 weeks increased significantly, although the association between guideline modification and morbidity became non-significant after case-mix adjustment. Overall, favourable outcome did not change significantly after guideline modification in all subgroups when adjusted for variation in case-mix. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, the trend in mortality gradually declined at all gestational ages, starting before 2006. This suggests that the guideline modification was a formalisation of already existing daily practice. Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://www.bmj.com/company/products-services/rights-and-licensing/
BACKGROUND: In 2006, the Dutch guideline for active treatment of extremely preterm neonates advised to lower the gestational age threshold for active intervention from 26 0/7 to 25 0/7 weeks gestation. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the association between the guideline modification and early neonatal outcome. DESIGN: National cohort study, using prospectively collected data from The Netherlands Perinatal Registry. PATIENTS: The study population consisted of 9713 infants with a gestational age between 24 0/7 and 29 6/7 weeks, born between 2000 and 2011. Three gestational age subgroups were analysed: 24 0/7 to 24 6/7 weeks (n=269), 25 0/7 to 25 6/7 weeks (n=852) and 26 0/7 to 29 6/7 weeks (n=8592). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) admission, live births, neonatal in-hospital mortality, morbidity and favourable outcome (no mortality or morbidity) before (2000-2005; period 1) and after (2007-2011; period 2) introduction of the modified guideline, using χ(2) tests and univariable and multivariable logistic regression analyses. RESULTS: In the second period, the proportion of live births and NICU admissions increased and the proportion of neonatal and in-hospital mortality decreased significantly in all subgroups. Morbidity in surviving infants of 25 weeks increased significantly, although the association between guideline modification and morbidity became non-significant after case-mix adjustment. Overall, favourable outcome did not change significantly after guideline modification in all subgroups when adjusted for variation in case-mix. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, the trend in mortality gradually declined at all gestational ages, starting before 2006. This suggests that the guideline modification was a formalisation of already existing daily practice. Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://www.bmj.com/company/products-services/rights-and-licensing/
Authors: Lauren C Weeke; Inge M van Ooijen; Floris Groenendaal; Alexander C van Huffelen; Ingrid C van Haastert; Carolien van Stam; Manon J Benders; Mona C Toet; Lena Hellström-Westas; Linda S de Vries Journal: Clin Neurophysiol Date: 2017-10-03 Impact factor: 3.708
Authors: Anita C J Ravelli; Martine Eskes; Joris A M van der Post; Ameen Abu-Hanna; Christianne J M de Groot Journal: BMC Public Health Date: 2020-05-26 Impact factor: 3.295
Authors: Rolf F Maier; Béatrice Blondel; Aurélie Piedvache; Bjoern Misselwitz; Stavros Petrou; Patrick Van Reempts; Francesco Franco; Henrique Barros; Janusz Gadzinowski; Klaus Boerch; Arno van Heijst; Elizabeth S Draper; Jennifer Zeitlin Journal: Pediatr Crit Care Med Date: 2018-12 Impact factor: 3.624