| Literature DB >> 33962618 |
Yoshinori Aoki1, Tatsuo Kono2, Mikako Enokizono2, Kaoru Okazaki3.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Neonatal encephalopathy due to acute perinatal asphyxia is a major cause of perinatal brain damage. Moderate to severe neonatal encephalopathy is associated with high mortality and morbidity rates. However, the neurodevelopmental outcomes in neonates with mild neonatal encephalopathy are unclear. The primary aim of this single-center observational study was to assess the short-term outcomes in term neonates with mild neonatal encephalopathy due to perinatal asphyxia. A secondary aim was to identify predictors of poor prognosis by identifying the characteristics of these infants according to their short-term outcomes.Entities:
Keywords: Brain; Magnetic resonance imaging; Mild neonatal encephalopathy; Outcome; Perinatal asphyxia; Thompson score
Year: 2021 PMID: 33962618 PMCID: PMC8103637 DOI: 10.1186/s12887-021-02688-y
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Pediatr ISSN: 1471-2431 Impact factor: 2.125
Fig. 1Enrollment, classification, and treatment of the study infants. Infants who met the inclusion criteria and none of the exclusion criteria. Perinatal asphyxia was defined as one or more of the following: 10 min Apgar score ≤ 5, resuscitation ≥ 10 min, blood gas pH < 7.0, and blood gas base deficit ≥ 16. One patient with Sarnat stage 2 neonatal encephalopathy did not receive therapeutic hypothermia due to severe bleeding
Comparison between infants with mild NE according to whether short-term outcomes were normal or abnormal
| Abnormal | Normal | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Infants, n (%) | 11 | 50 | |
| Male sex, n (%) | 6 (55) | 32 (64) | 0.56 |
| Gestational age (weeks), median (IQR) | 39 (39–39) | 39 (37.5–40) | 0.93 |
| Birth weight (g), mean ± SD | 2848 ± 378 | 2934 ± 529 | 0.48 |
| Mode of delivery | |||
| Cesarean delivery, n (%) | 4 (36) | 22 (44) | 0.64 |
| Vacuum extraction, n (%) | 3 (27) | 9 (18) | 0.48 |
| Natural, n (%) | 4 (36) | 19 (38) | 0.89 |
| Non-reassuring fetal status, n (%) | 10 (91) | 28 (56) | 0.09 |
| Placental abruption, n (%) | 3 (27) | 11 (22) | 0.59 |
| Outborn delivery, n (%) | 7 (64) | 43 (86) | 0.09 |
| Apgar score at 1 min, median (IQR) | 2 (1-2.5) | 2 (1–3) | 0.14 |
| Apgar score at 5 min, median (IQR) | 5 (3-5.5) | 5 (4–6) | 0.38 |
| Intubation (in delivery room), n (%) | 6 (55) | 32 (64) | 0.56 |
| Cardiac compression, n (%) | 2 (18) | 2 (4) | 0.09 |
| CPR ≥ 10 min, n (%) | 9 (82) | 41 (82) | 1.0 |
| Blood gas pH, median (IQR) | 6.97 (6.89–7.11) | 7.03 (6.92–7.15) | 0.69 |
| Blood gas base deficit, median (IQR) | 17 (15–21) | 11 (7.8–19) | 0.04 |
| Thompson score, median (IQR) | 5 (4-5.5) | 2 (1–3) | < 0.01 |
| Vasopressor use, n (%) | 2 (18) | 15 (30) | 0.43 |
| Therapeutic hypothermia, n (%) | 1 (9) | 11 (22) | 0.33 |
Blood gas pH: lowest pH in either umbilical cord blood or infant blood recorded within the first 6 h of birth. Blood gas base deficit: highest base deficit in either umbilical cord blood or infant blood recorded within the first 6 h of birth. CPR cardiopulmonary resuscitation; IQR interquartile range; SD standard deviation
Fig. 2Thompson scores in infants with and without abnormal short-term outcomes. The horizontal line shows the median in the scatterplot. The scores were significantly higher in infants with abnormal short-term outcomes than in those with normal short-term outcomes (p < 0.01)
Fig. 3Receiver operating characteristic curve analysis of Thompson score as a predictor of short-term outcome. The area under the curve was 0.93 (95% confidence interval 0.86-0.99). The black circle and square indicate cutoff points of 4 and 5, respectively. When the cutoff value was 4, the sensitivity and specificity were 90.9% and 83.0%, respectively, and the positive and negative predictive values were 52.6% and 97.6%
Sensitivity, specificity, PPV, and NPV of the Thompson score in prediction of abnormal short-term outcomes
| Thompson score | Sensitivity | Specificity | PPV | NPV |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2 | 100 % | 36 % | 25 % | 100 % |
| 3 | 100 % | 73 % | 44 % | 100 % |
| 5 | 54.50 % | 94 % | 66.70 % | 90.40 % |
| 6 | 27.30 % | 100 % | 100 % | 86.20 % |
NPV negative predictive value; PPV positive predictive value