Comparing very low birth weight versus very low gestation cohort methods for outcome analysis of high risk preterm infants

Background: Compared to very low gestational age (\u3c32 weeks, VLGA) cohorts, very low birth weight (\u3c1500 g; VLBW) cohorts are more prone to selection bias toward small-for-gestational age (SGA) infants, which may impact upon the validity of data for benchmarking purposes. Method: Data from all VLGA or VLBW infants admitted in the 3 Networks between 2008 and 2011 were used. Two-thirds of each network cohort was randomly selected to develop prediction models for mortality and composite adverse outcome (CAO: mortality or cerebral injuries, chronic lung disease, severe retinopathy or necrotizing enterocolitis) and the remaining for internal validation. Areas under the ROC curves (AUC) of the models were compared. Results: VLBW cohort (24,335 infants) had twice more SGA infants (20.4% vs. 9.3%) than the VLGA cohort (29,180 infants) and had a higher rate of CAO (36.5% vs. 32.6%). The two models had equal prediction power for mortality and CAO (AUC 0.83), and similarly for all other cross-cohort validations (AUC 0.81-0.85). Neither model performed well for the extremes of birth weight for gestation (\u3c1500 g and ≥32 weeks, AUC 0.50-0.65; ≥1500 g and \u3c32 weeks, AUC 0.60-0.62). Conclusion: There was no difference in prediction power for adverse outcome between cohorting VLGA or VLBW despite substantial bias in SGA population. Either cohorting practises are suitable for international benchmarking

Supporting parents through stillbirth : a qualitative study exploring the views of health professionals and health care staff in three hospitals in England

Objective: To investigate the views of a range of hospital based health professionals and health care staff in the management of stillbirth • Design: A qualitative pilot study informed by grounded theory • Setting: Three hospital trusts based in the North East of England • Population or Sample: 21 consultant obstetricians, 3 trainees (including 1 senior trainee), 29 midwives, 3 midwife sonographers and 4 chaplains. • Methods: Focus groups and semi-structured interviews • Main Outcome Measures: To clarify experiences and views of hospital based health professionals and health care staff. To highlight potential gaps in training needs for these staff groups. • Results: Two different approaches in stillbirth management could be detected in our study. One approach emphasised the existing evidence-base and patient directed choice whilst the other emphasised tradition and profession-directed care. These differences were particularly apparent in choices over mode of delivery, and the location of women as well as the time interval between diagnosis and delivery. • Conclusions: Disagreement exists among clinicians regarding best practice in managing two important decisions in stillbirth: mode of delivery and location of women and the time interval between diagnosis and delivery. High quality evidence is needed regarding the long term impact, including the psychological and emotional sequelae, of these two key decisions in stillbirth. Such high quality evidence will enable clinicians to provide women with fully informed and meaningful choices

Prediction of outcomes of extremely low gestational age newborns in Australia and New Zealand

© Article author(s) (or their employer(s) unless otherwise stated in the text of the article) 2017. All rights reserved. Objective To determine the accuracy of the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD) calculator in predicting death and neurodevelopmental impairment in Australian and New Zealand infants. Design Population-based cohort study. setting Australia and New Zealand. Patients Preterm infants 22–25 completed weeks gestation. Interventions Comparison of NICHD calculator predicted rates of death and death or neurodevelopmental impairment, with actual rates recorded in the Australian and New Zealand Neonatal Network cohort. Main outcome measures Infant death and death or neurodevelopmental impairment rates. results A total of 714 infants were included in the study. Of these infants, 100 (14.0%) were <24 weeks, 389 (54.5%) male, 529 (74.1%) were singletons, 42 (5.9%) had intrauterine growth restriction, 563 (78.9%) received antenatal steroids and 625 (87.5 %) were born in a tertiary hospital. There were 288 deaths (40.3%), 75 infants (10.5%) with neurodevelopment impairment and 363 (50.8%) with death or neurodevelopmental impairment. The area under the curve (AUC) for prediction of death and the composite death or neurodevelopmental impairment by the NICHD calculator in our population was 0.65(95% CI 0.61 to 0.69) and 0.65 (95% CI 0.61 to 0.69), respectively. When stratified and compared with gestational age outcomes, the AUC did not change substantially for the outcomes investigated. The calculator was less accurate with outcome predictions at the extreme categories of predicted outcomes—underestimation of outcomes for those predicted to have the lowest risk (<20%) and overestimation for those in the highest risk category (≫80%). conclusion In our recent cohort of extremely preterm infants, the NICHD model does not accurately predict outcomes and is marginally better than gestational age based outcomes