Liset Hoftiezer1, Chantal W P M Hukkelhoven2, Marije Hogeveen3, Huub M P M Straatman4, Richard A van Lingen5. 1. Princess Amalia Department of Paediatrics, Department of Neonatology, P.O. Box 10400, 8000 GK, Isala, Zwolle, The Netherlands. l.hoftiezer@isala.nl. 2. Perined, Utrecht, The Netherlands. 3. Amalia Children's Hospital, Department of Neonatology, Radboud University Medical Centre, Nijmegen, The Netherlands. 4. PHARMO Institute for Drug Outcomes Research, Utrecht, The Netherlands. 5. Princess Amalia Department of Paediatrics, Department of Neonatology, P.O. Box 10400, 8000 GK, Isala, Zwolle, The Netherlands.
Abstract
UNLABELLED: Descriptive population-based birthweight standards possess low sensitivity in detecting infants with growth impairment. A prescriptive birthweight standard based on a 'healthy' subpopulation without risk factors for intrauterine growth restriction might be superior. We created two birthweight standards based on live born, singleton infants with gestational age 24-42 weeks and born in The Netherlands between 2000 and 2007. Inclusion criteria for the prescriptive birthweight standard were restricted to infants without congenital malformations, born to healthy mothers after uncomplicated pregnancies. We defined small-for-gestational-age (SGA) as birthweight <10th percentile and assessed the ability of both standards to predict adverse neonatal outcomes. The prescriptive birthweight standard identified significantly more infants as SGA, up to 38.0 % at 29 weeks gestation. SGA infants classified according to both standards as well as those classified according to the prescriptive birthweight standard only, were at increased risk of both major and minor adverse neonatal outcomes. The prescriptive birthweight standard was both more sensitive and less specific, with a maximum increase in sensitivity predicting bronchopulmonary dysplasia (+42.6 %) and a maximum decrease in specificity predicting intraventricular haemorrhage (-26.9 %) in infants aged 28-31 weeks. CONCLUSION: Prescriptive birthweight standards could improve identification of infants born SGA and at risk of adverse neonatal outcomes. WHAT IS KNOWN: • Descriptive birthweight standards possess low sensitivity in detecting growth restricted infants at risk of adverse neonatal outcomes. • Prescriptive standards could improve identification of very preterm small-for-gestational-age (SGA) infants at risk of intraventricular haemorrhage. What is New: • Prescriptive standards identify more preterm and term SGA infants at risk of major adverse neonatal outcomes. • Late preterm and term SGA infants classified according to the prescriptive standard are at increased risk of minor adverse neonatal outcomes with potentially harmful implications.
UNLABELLED: Descriptive population-based birthweight standards possess low sensitivity in detecting infants with growth impairment. A prescriptive birthweight standard based on a 'healthy' subpopulation without risk factors for intrauterine growth restriction might be superior. We created two birthweight standards based on live born, singleton infants with gestational age 24-42 weeks and born in The Netherlands between 2000 and 2007. Inclusion criteria for the prescriptive birthweight standard were restricted to infants without congenital malformations, born to healthy mothers after uncomplicated pregnancies. We defined small-for-gestational-age (SGA) as birthweight <10th percentile and assessed the ability of both standards to predict adverse neonatal outcomes. The prescriptive birthweight standard identified significantly more infants as SGA, up to 38.0 % at 29 weeks gestation. SGA infants classified according to both standards as well as those classified according to the prescriptive birthweight standard only, were at increased risk of both major and minor adverse neonatal outcomes. The prescriptive birthweight standard was both more sensitive and less specific, with a maximum increase in sensitivity predicting bronchopulmonary dysplasia (+42.6 %) and a maximum decrease in specificity predicting intraventricular haemorrhage (-26.9 %) in infants aged 28-31 weeks. CONCLUSION: Prescriptive birthweight standards could improve identification of infants born SGA and at risk of adverse neonatal outcomes. WHAT IS KNOWN: • Descriptive birthweight standards possess low sensitivity in detecting growth restricted infants at risk of adverse neonatal outcomes. • Prescriptive standards could improve identification of very preterm small-for-gestational-age (SGA) infants at risk of intraventricular haemorrhage. What is New: • Prescriptive standards identify more preterm and term SGA infants at risk of major adverse neonatal outcomes. • Late preterm and term SGA infants classified according to the prescriptive standard are at increased risk of minor adverse neonatal outcomes with potentially harmful implications.
Entities:
Keywords:
Intrauterine growth restriction; Perinatal mortality and morbidity; Reference standards; Sensitivity and specificity; Small for gestational age
Authors: Gerard H A Visser; Paul H C Eilers; Patty M Elferink-Stinkens; Hans M W M Merkus; Jan M Wit Journal: Early Hum Dev Date: 2009-11-13 Impact factor: 2.079
Authors: V Boswinkel; S J Steggerda; M Fumagalli; A Parodi; L A Ramenghi; F Groenendaal; J Dudink; M N Benders; R Knol; L S de Vries; G van Wezel-Meijler Journal: Cerebellum Date: 2019-12 Impact factor: 3.847
Authors: Thijs W de Vos; Leendert Porcelijn; Suzanne Hofstede-van Egmond; Eva Pajkrt; Dick Oepkes; Enrico Lopriore; C Ellen van der Schoot; Dian Winkelhorst; Masja de Haas Journal: Br J Haematol Date: 2021-08-16 Impact factor: 8.615
Authors: Lisanne van Prooyen Schuurman; Erik A Sistermans; Diane Van Opstal; Lidewij Henneman; Mireille N Bekker; Caroline J Bax; Mijntje J Pieters; Katelijne Bouman; Sonja de Munnik; Nicolette S den Hollander; Karin E M Diderich; Brigitte H W Faas; Ilse Feenstra; Attie T J I Go; Mariëtte J V Hoffer; Marieke Joosten; Fenne L Komdeur; Klaske D Lichtenbelt; Maria P Lombardi; Marike G Polak; Fernanda S Jehee; Heleen Schuring-Blom; Servi J C Stevens; Malgorzata I Srebniak; Ron F Suijkerbuijk; Gita M Tan-Sindhunata; Karuna R M van der Meij; Merel C van Maarle; Vivian Vernimmen; Shama L van Zelderen-Bhola; Nicolien T van Ravesteyn; Maarten F C M Knapen; Merryn V E Macville; Robert-Jan H Galjaard Journal: Am J Hum Genet Date: 2022-06-02 Impact factor: 11.043
Authors: Manon Bos; Mirthe H Schoots; Bernadette O Fernandez; Monika Mikus-Lelinska; Laurie C Lau; Michael Eikmans; Harry van Goor; Sanne J Gordijn; Andreas Pasch; Martin Feelisch; Marie-Louise P van der Hoorn Journal: Int J Mol Sci Date: 2019-03-06 Impact factor: 5.923
Authors: Loes C M Bertens; Lizbeth Burgos Ochoa; Tom Van Ourti; Eric A P Steegers; Jasper V Been Journal: J Epidemiol Community Health Date: 2019-11-04 Impact factor: 3.710
Authors: Marije van der Hulst; Suzanne Polinder; Rianne Kok; Peter Prinzie; Marijke W de Groot; Alex Burdorf; Loes C M Bertens Journal: Int J Equity Health Date: 2022-01-12
Authors: Thijs W de Vos; Dian Winkelhorst; Hans J Baelde; Kyra L Dijkstra; Rianne D M van Bergen; Lotte E van der Meeren; Peter G J Nikkels; Leendert Porcelijn; C Ellen van der Schoot; Gestur Vidarsson; Michael Eikmans; Rick Kapur; Carin van der Keur; Leendert A Trouw; Dick Oepkes; Enrico Lopriore; Marie-Louise P van der Hoorn; Manon Bos; Masja de Haas Journal: Int J Mol Sci Date: 2021-06-23 Impact factor: 5.923