Yi Mu1, Mingrong Li1, Jun Zhu1,2, Yanping Wang1, Aiyun Xing3, Zheng Liu1, Yanxia Xie4, Xiaodong Wang5, Juan Liang1. 1. National Office for Maternal and Child Health Surveillance of China, West China Second University Hospital, Sichuan University, Ren Min South Road Section 3 No. 17, Chengdu, Sichuan, China. 2. Key Laboratory of Birth Defects and Related Diseases of Women and Children (Sichuan University), Ministry of Education, Ren Min South Road Section 3 No. 17, Chengdu, Sichuan, China. 3. Department of Obstetrics, West China Second University Hospital, Sichuan University, Ren Min South Road Section 3 No. 17, Chengdu, Sichuan, China. 4. National Office for Maternal and Child Health Surveillance of China, West China Second University Hospital, Sichuan University, Ren Min South Road Section 3 No. 17, Chengdu, Sichuan, China. xieyanxia@motherchildren.com. 5. Department of Obstetrics, West China Second University Hospital, Sichuan University, Ren Min South Road Section 3 No. 17, Chengdu, Sichuan, China. drwangxiaodong@126.com.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: To examine the association between the Apgar score and neonatal mortality over gestational age in China and to explore whether this association changed when Apgar scores were combined at 1 and 5 min. METHODS: Data for all singleton live births collected from 438 hospitals between 2012 and 2016 were used in this study. Poisson regression with a robust variance estimator adjusted for a complete set of confounders was used to describe the strength of the association between the Apgar score and neonatal mortality. RESULTS: The relative risks of neonatal death-associated intermediate Apgar score at 5 min peaked at 39-40 weeks of gestation and subsequently decreased if the gestational age increased to 42 weeks or above, in contrast to the low Apgar score. Among both preterm and term new-borns with Apgar scores at 5 min, new-borns that were not small for gestational age had a lower mortality rate than those that were small for gestational age. The association between Apgar score and the neonatal mortality was even stronger when scores at 1 and 5 min were combined. CONCLUSIONS: Apgar score is not only meaningful for preterm new-borns but also useful for term new-borns, especially term new-borns that are not small for gestational age. Once the baby's Apgar score worsens, timely intervention is needed. There is still a gap between China and high-income countries in terms of sustained treatment of new-borns with low Apgar scores.
BACKGROUND: To examine the association between the Apgar score and neonatal mortality over gestational age in China and to explore whether this association changed when Apgar scores were combined at 1 and 5 min. METHODS: Data for all singleton live births collected from 438 hospitals between 2012 and 2016 were used in this study. Poisson regression with a robust variance estimator adjusted for a complete set of confounders was used to describe the strength of the association between the Apgar score and neonatal mortality. RESULTS: The relative risks of neonatal death-associated intermediate Apgar score at 5 min peaked at 39-40 weeks of gestation and subsequently decreased if the gestational age increased to 42 weeks or above, in contrast to the low Apgar score. Among both preterm and term new-borns with Apgar scores at 5 min, new-borns that were not small for gestational age had a lower mortality rate than those that were small for gestational age. The association between Apgar score and the neonatal mortality was even stronger when scores at 1 and 5 min were combined. CONCLUSIONS: Apgar score is not only meaningful for preterm new-borns but also useful for term new-borns, especially term new-borns that are not small for gestational age. Once the baby's Apgar score worsens, timely intervention is needed. There is still a gap between China and high-income countries in terms of sustained treatment of new-borns with low Apgar scores.
Entities:
Keywords:
Apgar score; China; Neonatal mortality; Small for gestational age
Authors: Matthew A Rysavy; Lei Li; Edward F Bell; Abhik Das; Susan R Hintz; Barbara J Stoll; Betty R Vohr; Waldemar A Carlo; Seetha Shankaran; Michele C Walsh; Jon E Tyson; C Michael Cotten; P Brian Smith; Jeffrey C Murray; Tarah T Colaizy; Jane E Brumbaugh; Rosemary D Higgins Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2015-05-07 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: R J Baer; E E Rogers; J C Partridge; J G Anderson; M Morris; M Kuppermann; L S Franck; L Rand; L L Jelliffe-Pawlowski Journal: J Perinatol Date: 2016-07-28 Impact factor: 2.521
Authors: Joanne Katz; Anne Cc Lee; Naoko Kozuki; Joy E Lawn; Simon Cousens; Hannah Blencowe; Majid Ezzati; Zulfiqar A Bhutta; Tanya Marchant; Barbara A Willey; Linda Adair; Fernando Barros; Abdullah H Baqui; Parul Christian; Wafaie Fawzi; Rogelio Gonzalez; Jean Humphrey; Lieven Huybregts; Patrick Kolsteren; Aroonsri Mongkolchati; Luke C Mullany; Richard Ndyomugyenyi; Jyh Kae Nien; David Osrin; Dominique Roberfroid; Ayesha Sania; Christentze Schmiegelow; Mariangela F Silveira; James Tielsch; Anjana Vaidya; Sithembiso C Velaphi; Cesar G Victora; Deborah Watson-Jones; Robert E Black Journal: Lancet Date: 2013-06-06 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Chunhua He; Li Liu; Yue Chu; Jamie Perin; Li Dai; Xiaohong Li; Lei Miao; Leni Kang; Qi Li; Robert Scherpbier; Sufang Guo; Igor Rudan; Peige Song; Kit Yee Chan; Yan Guo; Robert E Black; Yanping Wang; Jun Zhu Journal: Lancet Glob Health Date: 2016-12-20 Impact factor: 26.763