ARTICLE Gestational Age, Health, and Educational Outcomes in Adolescents Mary J. Berry, MBBS, PhD, a,b Tim Foster, MBChB, c,d Kate Rowe, MBChB, b Oliver Robertson, MCom, c Bridget Robson, BA, c Nevil Pierse, PhD c BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: As outcomes for extremely premature infants improve, up-to- date, large-scale studies are needed to provide accurate, contemporary information for clinicians, families, and policy makers. We used nationwide New Zealand data to explore the impact of gestational age on health and educational outcomes through to adolescence. METHODS: We performed a retrospective cohort study of all births in New Zealand appearing in 2 independent national data sets at 23 weeks' gestation or more. We report on 2 separate cohorts: cohort 1, born January 1, 2005 to December 31, 2015 (613 521 individuals), used to study survival and midterm health and educational outcomes; and cohort 2, born January 1, 1998 to December 31, 2000, and surviving to age 15 years (146 169 individuals), used to study high school educational outcomes. Outcomes described by gestational age include survival, hospitalization rates, national well-being assessment outcomes at age 4 years, rates of special education support needs in primary school, and national high school examination results. RESULTS: Ten-year survival increased with gestational age from 66% at 23 to 24 weeks to >99% at term. All outcomes measured were strongly related to gestational age. However, most extremely preterm children did not require special educational support and were able to sit for their national high school examinations. CONCLUSIONS: Within a publicly funded health system, high-quality survival is achievable for most infants born at periviable gestations. Outcomes show improvement with gestational ages to term. Outcomes at early-term gestation are poorer than for children born at full term. abstract Departments of a Paediatrics and Child Health and c Public Health, University of Otago, Wellington, Wellington, New Zealand; b Capital and Coast District Health Board, Wellington, New Zealand; and d Hawke’s Bay District Health Board, Napier, New Zealand Dr Berry conceptualized and designed the study, drafted the manuscript, and was responsible for the clinical interpretation of the study data and overall supervision of the research project; Drs Foster and Pierse conceptualized and designed the study, designed the statistical analyses, accessed the study data through Statistics New Zealand’s Integrated Data Infrastructure, and conducted the statistical analyses; Dr Rowe assisted in drafting the manuscript and was responsible for the clinical interpretation of the study data; Mr Robertson accessed the study data through Statistics New Zealand’s Integrated Data Infrastructure and assisted in conducting the statistical analyses; Ms Robson conceptualized and designed the study and assisted in data interpretation; and all authors approved the final manuscript as submitted and agree to be accountable for all aspects of the work. The results in this article are not official statistics. They have been created for research purposes from the Integrated Data Infrastructure (IDI), managed by Statistics New Zealand. The opinions, findings, recommendations, and conclusions expressed in this article are those of the authors, not Statistics New Zealand. Access to the anonymized data used in this study was provided by Statistics New Zealand under the security and confidentiality provisions of the Statistics Act 1975. Only people authorized under the Statistics Act 1975 are allowed to see data about a particular PEDIATRICS Volume 142, number 5, November 2018:e20181016 WHAT’S KNOWN ON THIS SUBJECT: Gestational age is known to influence rates of neonatal survival as well as longer-term neurodevelopmental and educational outcomes. However, most long-term outcome data reflect selected cohorts or predate recent advances in neonatal care. WHAT THIS STUDY ADDS: We show that gestational age <39 weeks is associated with increased rates of hospitalization, developmental concerns, and educational challenges through to adolescence. However, even extremely preterm infants have high survival rates and can do well academically. To cite: Berry MJ, Foster T, Rowe K, et al. Gestational Age, Health, and Educational Outcomes in Adolescents. Pediatrics. 2018;142(5):e20181016 by guest on September 1, 2020 www.aappublications.org/news Downloaded from
14
Embed
Gestational Age, Health, and Educational Outcomes in Adolescents · BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: As outcomes for extremely premature infants improve, up-to-date, large-scale studies
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
ARTICLE
Gestational Age, Health, and Educational Outcomes in AdolescentsMary J. Berry, MBBS, PhD, a, b Tim Foster, MBChB, c, d Kate Rowe, MBChB, b Oliver Robertson, MCom, c Bridget Robson, BA, c Nevil Pierse, PhDc
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: As outcomes for extremely premature infants improve, up-to-date, large-scale studies are needed to provide accurate, contemporary information for clinicians, families, and policy makers. We used nationwide New Zealand data to explore the impact of gestational age on health and educational outcomes through to adolescence.METHODS: We performed a retrospective cohort study of all births in New Zealand appearing in 2 independent national data sets at 23 weeks' gestation or more. We report on 2 separate cohorts: cohort 1, born January 1, 2005 to December 31, 2015 (613 521 individuals), used to study survival and midterm health and educational outcomes; and cohort 2, born January 1, 1998 to December 31, 2000, and surviving to age 15 years (146 169 individuals), used to study high school educational outcomes. Outcomes described by gestational age include survival, hospitalization rates, national well-being assessment outcomes at age 4 years, rates of special education support needs in primary school, and national high school examination results.RESULTS: Ten-year survival increased with gestational age from 66% at 23 to 24 weeks to >99% at term. All outcomes measured were strongly related to gestational age. However, most extremely preterm children did not require special educational support and were able to sit for their national high school examinations.CONCLUSIONS: Within a publicly funded health system, high-quality survival is achievable for most infants born at periviable gestations. Outcomes show improvement with gestational ages to term. Outcomes at early-term gestation are poorer than for children born at full term.
abstract
Departments of aPaediatrics and Child Health and cPublic Health, University of Otago, Wellington, Wellington, New Zealand; bCapital and Coast District Health Board, Wellington, New Zealand; and dHawke’s Bay District Health Board, Napier, New Zealand
Dr Berry conceptualized and designed the study, drafted the manuscript, and was responsible for the clinical interpretation of the study data and overall supervision of the research project; Drs Foster and Pierse conceptualized and designed the study, designed the statistical analyses, accessed the study data through Statistics New Zealand’s Integrated Data Infrastructure, and conducted the statistical analyses; Dr Rowe assisted in drafting the manuscript and was responsible for the clinical interpretation of the study data; Mr Robertson accessed the study data through Statistics New Zealand’s Integrated Data Infrastructure and assisted in conducting the statistical analyses; Ms Robson conceptualized and designed the study and assisted in data interpretation; and all authors approved the final manuscript as submitted and agree to be accountable for all aspects of the work.
The results in this article are not official statistics. They have been created for research purposes from the Integrated Data Infrastructure (IDI), managed by Statistics New Zealand. The opinions, findings, recommendations, and conclusions expressed in this article are those of the authors, not Statistics New Zealand. Access to the anonymized data used in this study was provided by Statistics New Zealand under the security and confidentiality provisions of the Statistics Act 1975. Only people authorized under the Statistics Act 1975 are allowed to see data about a particular
PEDIATRICS Volume 142, number 5, November 2018:e20181016
WHAT’S KNOWN ON THIS SUBJECT: Gestational age is known to influence rates of neonatal survival as well as longer-term neurodevelopmental and educational outcomes. However, most long-term outcome data reflect selected cohorts or predate recent advances in neonatal care.
WHAT THIS STUDY ADDS: We show that gestational age <39 weeks is associated with increased rates of hospitalization, developmental concerns, and educational challenges through to adolescence. However, even extremely preterm infants have high survival rates and can do well academically.
To cite: Berry MJ, Foster T, Rowe K, et al. Gestational Age, Health, and Educational Outcomes in Adolescents. Pediatrics. 2018;142(5):e20181016
by guest on September 1, 2020www.aappublications.org/newsDownloaded from
Advances in perinatal medicine over the last 20 years have dramatically improved survival for preterm infants.1 With increasing survival, 2 – 7 we urgently need more information about the long-term impact of preterm birth.
One of the most challenging areas of perinatal medicine is the care of periviable infants (defined here as gestation <25 weeks and/or birth weight <500 g). Recommendations around intervention and resuscitation at the threshold of viability vary greatly.8 In this context, there is a need for accurate, contemporary information used to describe long-term and short-term outcomes.9
Researchers in large cohort studies such as EPICure, EPIPAGE, the Extremely Preterm Infants Study in Sweden, and Extremely Preterm Infants in Belgium describe the morbidity and mortality experienced by extremely preterm infants.2, 10 – 14 It is clear that preterm birth increases the rate of hospital readmissions15 and affects behavior and academic performance at school16 – 19 in both very preterm20 – 24 and late-preterm infants.25 – 27 Others have reported longer-term gestational age–associated health, 28, 29 social, 30 and educational17 outcomes from cohorts born in the 1970s and 1980s. However, the generalizability of their findings is limited because perinatal care of the era was different from contemporary practice.
Additionally, those within the moderate- and late-preterm group are still at increased risk of adverse health, educational, and social outcomes, 31 –35 and birth at early term (37–38 weeks’ gestation) is associated with poorer elementary school–level educational outcomes, 36 but the longer-term impact is unknown. In an era when the timing of birth near term may arise from social factors rather than medical indications, 37, 38 the full impact of these choices must be understood
to allow for robust parental participation in decision-making.
Taken together, there is evidence that gestational age is an important mediator of later adversity. However, the strength of this relationship is unclear because of varied population selection, methodologies, sample sizes, and end points.20 There is a need to provide a national, holistic overview of the impact of gestational age, from periviable to postterm, on well-being across all aspects of an individual’s life.
The New Zealand Government has recently made a unique data resource available.39 The Integrated Data Infrastructure (IDI) is a comprehensive collection of central data sets containing deidentified health, education, and social data linked at an individual level. It contains information about all births and deaths, all hospital admissions (coded by International Classification of Diseases, 10th Revision [ICD-10] classification), a national health and well-being screening assessment (Before School Checks [B4SCs]), and information on educational outcomes, such as primary school interventions and high school examinations. Using the IDI, the impact of gestational age can be quantified on a national basis to provide a unique, comprehensive assessment of well-being across multiple domains.
METHODS
Integrated Data Infrastructure
All data used in this study were deidentified New Zealand governmental data linked at an individual level. The data were collected, linked, and deidentified by Statistics New Zealand and made available through the IDI.
Ethics
The University of Otago Ethics Committee provided institutional approval (HD16/053). Confidentiality approval was obtained from Statistics New Zealand to access the IDI.
Confidentiality
In accordance with the Statistics Act 1975 and Statistics New Zealand’s confidentiality rules, all data are in compliance with standard government confidentiality standards. Briefly, raw counts are random rounded to base 3, raw counts <6 are not reported, and means are only reported if they are based on >20 individuals (see Statistics New Zealand’s Microdata Output Guide 40).
Population Ascertainment
Study inclusion required linked birth records from 2 sources: the Department of Internal Affairs (DIA) and the Ministry of Health’s (MoH) National Minimum Dataset (NMD). All births from 23 + 0/7 weeks’ gestation identified in the DIA were matched to live births identified in the NMD over the same period. Matching across data sets was made possible by using the IDI spine.40 Individuals were included if they were present in both data sets and if their gestational ages matched between the 2 records, indicating that included children were live born and linkable within the IDI (∼95% of individuals within this age range are linkable with <1% error in the linking methodology).41, 42 Gestational ages for all infants were based on weeks’ completed gestation as ascertained by the obstetric care provider.
Individuals were excluded if there was no subsequent record of death, hospitalization, any prescription receipt, B4SC, or school attendance.
Two different cohorts were identified. Epoch 1 included all live births of ≥23 weeks’ gestation in New Zealand between 2005 and 2015. This was done to provide a cohort of children who would have completed their B4SCs at age 4 years and have primary school data available in the IDI (the B4SC program was introduced in 2008, and primary school data
BERRY et al2 by guest on September 1, 2020www.aappublications.org/newsDownloaded from
are available in the IDI from 2007 onward). This cohort was used to study short midterm outcomes (survival, childhood hospitalization, developmental screening, and primary school). Epoch 2 included all live births of ≥23 weeks’ gestation in New Zealand between 1998 and 2000 and surviving to the age of 15 years. This epoch was chosen to provide a cohort of children who will have completed their National Certificate of Educational Achievement (NCEA) Level 1 examinations and sat nationwide at the age of 15 years but were born from 1998 onward (when gestational age became reported compulsorily as part of birth data). We used this cohort to study long-term educational achievement.
Age, sex, and ethnicity data were derived from birth records. Socioeconomic status was based on each child’s birth address by using the New Zealand Index of Deprivation (NZDep). The NZDep is a small area-based measure of social deprivation; areas with the lowest levels of deprivation have a score of 1, and areas with the highest deprivation have a score of 5.43
Data Collection
Primary outcome measures were mortality, number and causes of hospi-talization from birth to age 10 years, developmental or behavioral problems at age 4 years, school enrollment and need for additional learning support,
and NCEA achievement (see the Education subsection).
Outcome Measures
All outcome measures are described for gestational age increments from periviable (23–24 weeks) through to early term (37–38 weeks) relative to our full-term reference control group (39–40 weeks). Because some infants were either not old enough at the end of the study period to complete the cross-sectional assessments (eg, NCEA) or had died before completing them, all study participants are not included in those measures.
Survival
Survival estimates for live-born infants were calculated to 10 years of age. Because of the complex ethics around the initiation (or noninitiation) of NICU intervention for infants born at <25 weeks’ gestation, survival rates were derived from live-born infants to whom resuscitation was offered instead of live-born infants who had no record of a resuscitation attempt. MoH birth records reveal whether a newborn infant received mechanical ventilation, noninvasive ventilation, or continuous positive airway pressure. The resuscitation of periviable infants inevitably involves 1 of these methods.8 Thus, resuscitation was assumed not to have been initiated in infants born at <25 weeks’ gestation who died in the first 48 hours of life without any record of mechanical ventilation, noninvasive ventilation, or
continuous positive airway pressure. These infants were excluded from survival analyses. For infants of <31 weeks’ gestation, survival was also analyzed by birth weight.
Hospitalization
Hospitalization data were analyzed from the time of first discharge from the hospital until 10 years of age by using the NMD. This included inpatient admissions but excluded emergency department presentations because these are coded separately from the NMD and are not available for the whole study period. Transfers between wards or hospitals were counted as a single admission and are coded differently from new readmissions by the MoH. The principal diagnosis was obtained from the ICD-10 code (used consistently for the 2005–2015 period) at time of discharge from the hospital, which is available as part of routine data reported to MoH.
B4SC
The B4SC is a universal health and well-being screening assessment that has been available to all 4-year-old children in New Zealand since 2008. The B4SC provides a robust national audit of children’s well-being.44 Aspects of the B4SC included in this study include (1) anthropometric growth data, (2) the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (completed by parents45 and [if
by guest on September 1, 2020www.aappublications.org/newsDownloaded from
BERRY et al4
FIGURE 1Overall survival and survival of periviable infants. A, Survival of resuscitated live-born infants to age 10 years. B, Survival of resuscitated infants of 23 weeks’ gestation to age 2 years. C, Survival of resuscitated infants of 24 weeks’ gestation to age 2 years. D, Survival of resuscitated live-born infants by birth weight and gestation.
by guest on September 1, 2020www.aappublications.org/newsDownloaded from
available] early-childhood educators), and (3) the Parents’ Evaluation of Developmental Status (PEDS) questionnaire. The mean scores for each gestational week group were calculated for prosocial behaviors, hyperactivity, conduct and emotional difficulties, and PEDS questionnaire results. The PEDS questionnaire is a developmental surveillance tool with a sensitivity of 74% to 79% and a specificity of 70% to 80% for clinically relevant developmental problems.44 The PEDS scores with 1 or more areas of concern were compared with those with no or nonsignificant concerns for each gestational week group.
Education
The IDI captures elementary school data from 2007 onward. Children are required to be enrolled in primary
school in New Zealand by age 6 years. These data exclude the 0.8% of children in New Zealand who are homeschooled.46 Children with additional learning needs receive support through the Resource Teachers: Learning and Behaviour (RTLB) service. The Reading Recovery program is an early literacy intervention used to target children who are falling behind after 1 year at school.47 We calculated the rates of primary school, RTLB service, and Reading Recovery enrollment for each gestational week group.
In New Zealand, the first formal educational qualification, NCEA Level 1, is achieved in year 11 of secondary school (US equivalent: grade 10), normally at 15 to 16 years of age. We report findings from Epoch 2 (children born 1998–2000) and
describe percentiles on the basis of weighted NCEA results compiled by the Ministry of Education.
Statistical Analyses
Raw survival was described by using Kaplan-Meier estimates (with the Greenwood formula used to estimate variance). The logrank test was used to test differences in Kaplan-Meier estimates. Hazard ratios for the effect of covariates were calculated by using a Cox proportional hazards model.
For the effect of birth weight on outcomes of interest, spline smoothing was used to model the relationship as a nonlinear smooth function. The smoothing parameter was chosen by using generalized cross-validation, and confidence limits were calculated nonparametrically by using the bootstrap. The bootstrap was also used to estimate the variance in mean hospitalization rates. Otherwise, standard statistical methods and tests were used.
All statistical analyses and data handling were performed in R.48 Survival analyses were performed by using R’s survival package, and standard bootstrap methods were performed by using the boot package; otherwise, all analyses were performed by using the base or stats packages and the authors’ own code.
Unless otherwise specified, gestational age was divided into
PEDIATRICS Volume 142, number 5, November 2018 5
TABLE 2 Hospitalization Rate per 10 000 Child-Years by Gestation and Chronological Age
Gestation, wk Age, y
<1 1–5 6–9
23–24 23 986** 8486** 1955**
25–26 19 672** 6321** 1991**
27–28 16 180** 4427** 1543**
29–30 11 563** 3551** 1473**
31–32 9280** 2826** 1336**
33–34 6830** 2369** 1005**
35–36 5662** 2011** 946**
37–38 4241** 1675** 841**
39–40 3358a 1492a 752a
41+ 3057** 1435** 744
Children born preterm were more likely to be admitted for a respiratory illness than for other reasons (Table 3), with 46% of the admissions being of periviable infants for respiratory conditions (giving a 14 times higher risk of admission due to respiratory illness than for children born at full term). P values are versus those born at 39 to 40 wk.a Reference.** P < .01.
TABLE 3 Admission Cause Based on Primary Diagnosis
EENT, eye, ear, nose, and throat; GA, gestational age; GI, gastroenterological.a Perinatal refers to a heterogeneous group of conditions grouped within ICD-10 chapter 17, “certain conditions originating in the perinatal period.”
by guest on September 1, 2020www.aappublications.org/newsDownloaded from
BERRY et al6
TABL
E 4
Resu
lts o
f the
B4S
C at
Age
4 Y
ears
As
Wel
l As
Prim
ary
Scho
ol E
duca
tion
Outc
omes
by
Gest
atio
n
GA, w
k
23–2
425
–26
27–2
829
–30
31–3
233
–34
35–3
637
–38
39–4
041
+
Pare
ntal
eva
luat
ion
of
deve
lopm
enta
l sta
ge
≥2
conc
erns
, n (
%)
24 (
24)
57 (
15)
87 (
13)
114
(11)
159
(8)
357
(8)
831
(7)
3630
(6)
8091
(5)
2934
(5)
1
conc
ern,
n (
%)
24 (
24)
96 (
26)
111
(17)
198
(19)
321
(16)
774
(17)
1977
(16
)91
68 (
15)
23 28
3 (1
4)81
24 (
14)
No
nsig
nific
ant c
once
rn, n
(%
)9
(9)
39 (
10)
87 (
13)
117
(11)
222
(11)
501
(11)
1296
(10
)64
74 (
10)
16 49
1 (1
0)59
40 (
10)
No
t com
plet
ed, n
(%
)S
SS
9 (1
)15
(1)
30 (
1)84
(1)
366
(1)
921
(1)
330
(1)
No
con
cern
, n (
%)
42 (
42)
180
(48)
360
(56)
606
(58)
1260
(64
)29
70 (
64)
8463
(67
)43
245
(69)
114 1
56 (
70)
39 77
7 (7
0)
Tota
l, N
9937
264
510
4419
7746
3212
651
62 88
316
2 942
57 10
5
P<.
01<.
01<.
01<.
01<.
01<.
01<.
01<.
01Re
fere
nce
.14
Hear
ing
Bi
late
ral p
ass,
n (
%)
57 (
50)
273
(59)
483
(67)
837
(71)
1578
(72
)39
33 (
77)
11 04
6 (7
9)55
866
(80)
146 7
00 (
81)
51 16
5 (8
1)
Refe
rred
, n (
%)
18 (
16)
57 (
12)
63 (
9)10
5 (9
)18
3 (8
)32
7 (6
)85
2 (6
)41
85 (
6)99
99 (
6)35
13 (
6)
Unde
r ca
re, n
(%
)21
(18
)60
(13
)72
(10
)93
(8)
123
(6)
270
(5)
531
(4)
2331
(3)
5073
(3)
1809
(3)
Re
scre
ened
, n (
%)
9 (8
)51
(11
)75
(10
)99
(8)
216
(10)
444
(9)
1140
(8)
5439
(8)
13 64
7 (8
)48
75 (
8)
Decl
ine,
n (
%)
9 (8
)18
(4)
27 (
4)48
(4)
81 (
4)14
7 (3
)41
4 (3
)22
32 (
3)56
22 (
3)19
08 (
3)
Tota
l, N
114
459
720
1182
2181
5121
13 98
370
053
181 0
4163
270
P
<.01
<.01
<.01
<.01
<.01
<.01
<.01
<.01
Refe
renc
e.4
5Vi
sion
Bi
late
ral p
ass,
n (
%)
60 (
53)
285
(62)
513
(72)
870
(74)
1581
(72
)39
06 (
76)
11 09
1 (7
9)56
844
(81)
150 0
03 (
83)
52 57
5 (8
3)
Refe
rred
, n (
%)
12 (
11)
60 (
13)
75 (
10)
108
(9)
237
(13)
450
(9)
1131
(8)
5094
(7)
11 89
2 (7
)39
93 (
6)
Unde
r ca
re, n
(%
)27
(24
)75
(16
)63
(9)
87 (
7)13
8 (6
)30
3 (6
)57
6 (4
)23
10 (
3)47
43 (
3)17
01 (
3)
Resc
reen
, n (
%)
6 (5
)24
(5)
39 (
5)60
(5)
135
(6)
303
(6)
750
(5)
3543
(5)
8772
(5)
3093
(5)
De
clin
e, n
(%
)9
(8)
15 (
3)27
(4)
54 (
5)93
(4)
156
(3)
423
(3)
2235
(3)
5577
(3)
1899
(3)
To
tal,
N11
445
971
711
7921
8451
1813
971
70 02
618
0 987
63 26
1
P <.
01<.
01<.
01<.
01<.
01<.
01<.
01<.
01Re
fere
nce
.13
Stre
ngth
s an
d Di
fficu
lties
Qu
estio
nnai
re–P
aren
t
Pros
ocia
l beh
avio
r, m
ean
7.73
**8.
01**
8.1*
*8.
16**
8.2*
*8.
28*
8.33
8.32
**8.
378.
38
Hype
ract
ivity
, mea
n4.
06**
3.16
**3.
05**
3.01
**2.
79**
2.68
**2.
6**
2.48
**2.
442.
41*
Co
nduc
t pro
blem
s, m
ean
1.95
1.71
1.92
**1.
75*
1.76
**1.
69*
1.68
**1.
63*
1.61
1.61
Em
otio
nal p
robl
ems,
mea
n1.
561.
56*
1.68
**1.
58**
1.5*
*1.
45**
1.4*
*1.
35**
1.34
1.33
No
. res
pond
ents
9938
765
410
6520
1646
7112
777
63 54
016
4 448
57 65
1St
reng
ths
and
Diffi
culti
es
Ques
tionn
aire
–Tea
cher
Pr
osoc
ial b
ehav
ior,
mea
n3
4.04
4.17
4.25
4.36
4.28
4.24
*4.
21**
4.31
4.36
Hy
pera
ctiv
ity, m
ean
1.04
1.17
**0.
99**
0.98
**0.
96**
0.89
**0.
89**
0.76
**0.
730.
73
Cond
uct p
robl
ems,
mea
n0.
310.
390.
390.
410.
420.
40.
42**
0.36
0.36
0.38
Em
otio
nal p
robl
ems,
mea
n0.
340.
410.
47*
0.47
**0.
45**
0.43
**0.
43**
0.39
**0.
380.
38
No. r
espo
nden
ts99
384
645
1059
1995
4620
12 66
662
970
162 9
6957
150
Grow
th, m
ean
He
ight
101.
1**
103.
1**
103.
2**
104.
1**
104.
4**
105.
2**
105.
6**
106*
*10
6.4
106.
7**
W
t16
**16
.7**
16.8
**17
.3**
17.5
**17
.9**
18.2
**18
.4**
18.6
18.9
**
BMI
15.6
**15
.6**
15.7
**15
.9**
16**
16.1
**16
.3**
16.4
**16
.416
.5**
Part
icip
ated
in B
4SC,
tota
l14
753
782
513
7124
6358
1715
861
79 36
220
5 089
71 00
4
by guest on September 1, 2020www.aappublications.org/newsDownloaded from
2-week epochs from 23 + 0/7 to 24 + 6/7 weeks’ gestation through to ≥41 + 0/7 weeks’ gestation. All error bars or bands for graphs are used to display the 95% confidence interval unless otherwise stated.
RESULTS
Epoch 1
Participants
The DIA identified 678 072 live births at ≥23 weeks’ gestation between January 1, 2005, and December 31, 2015. After exclusions due to infants not having matching NMD records and loss to follow-up, we report outcomes for 613 521 eligible individuals.
The demographic characteristics of infants included in the study are reported in Table 1. The preterm birth rate (<37 + 0/7 weeks) was 7.2%. Periviable infants (<25 + 0/7 weeks) accounted for 0.09% (n = 549) of all births.
Families in high–social deprivation areas (measured by deprivation quintile) made up a higher proportion of all live births and are overrepresented at gestations <30 weeks and among those delivering postterm (Table 1).
Survival
In Fig 1A, we show survival to 10 years (with 95% confidence bands for individually drawn survival curves). At all gestational ages, the greatest risk of mortality was in the neonatal period, plateauing after the first year of age.
Among infants born at <25 weeks (n = 549), 396 were actively resuscitated. This included 87 of 201 infants of 23 weeks’ gestation and 312 of 348 infants of 24 weeks’ gestation.
With increasing gestational age, there was a statistically significant increase in survival for each gestation week group through to term (Supplemental Table 7).
Over time, the survival rates for each gestational age improved, with relative hazard of death decreasing by 2.5% for each year (hazard ratio = 0.975; P < .001; Supplemental Table 7) and no significant interaction by gestational age over the 10 years of the cohort study.
The 10-year survival rates of periviable infants who were presumed to have been actively resuscitated at birth (versus those who were live born and presumed not to have received newborn resuscitation) were 51.2% at 23 completed weeks and 67.6% at 24 completed weeks’ gestation (Figs 1B and 1C).
Figure 1D reveals the estimated effect of birth weight on the survival of infants born at <31 completed weeks’ gestation. With increasing gestational age, the effect of birth weight on survival diminished. Interestingly, survival probability seemingly plateaued for extremely large (>800 g) infants of 23 to 24 weeks’ gestation, which could, for example, represent the deleterious effects of factors that cause a “relative macrosomia” for this gestational age (eg, maternal gestational diabetes). However, the rarity of extremely large infants of 23 to 24 weeks’ gestation creates uncertainty in the estimate outside the range of 500 to 800 g, and further investigation of this effect is needed (Supplemental Fig 3).
Hospitalization
Those of all gestational ages <39 weeks (including early-term infants) had significantly increased rates of hospital admission compared with those born at 39 and 40 weeks’ gestation (Table 2). Overall admission rates were highest in preschool years, but the effect of gestational age persisted to age 10 years.
B4SC
B4SCs were conducted at age 4 years. Numbers assessed and numbers with
PEDIATRICS Volume 142, number 5, November 2018 7
GA, w
k
23–2
425
–26
27–2
829
–30
31–3
233
–34
35–3
637
–38
39–4
041
+
Avai
labl
e fo
r B4
SC (
4 y
of fo
llow
-up
), to
tal
174
612
945
1608
2844
6762
18 42
092
727
238 5
4281
921
Prim
ary
educ
atio
n
RTLB
ser
vice
nee
ded,
n (
%)
18 (
14)
39 (
8)39
(5)
72 (
6)99
(5)
195
(4)
429
(3)
1587
(2)
3399
(2)
1218
(2)
Re
adin
g re
cove
ry, n
(%
)15
(12
)57
(12
)96
(13
)15
9 (1
3)28
8 (1
3)62
1 (1
2)14
22 (
10)
6513
(9)
15 84
6 (9
)54
33 (
9)
Tota
l enr
olm
ent,
N12
946
873
512
1822
1151
4813
869
69 36
318
0 363
63 29
7
P<.
01<.
01<.
01<.
01<.
01<.
01<.
01<.
01Re
fere
nce
.26
Both
test
s ha
ve H
0 =
no d
iffer
ence
bet
wee
n th
e te
sted
ges
tatio
nal g
roup
and
the
refe
renc
e gr
oup
of 3
9 to
40
wk.
Con
tinge
ncy
tabl
es a
re te
sted
with
Pea
rson
’s χ
2 te
st, a
nd P
val
ues
are
repo
rted
; mea
n sc
ore
diffe
renc
es a
re te
sted
with
Stu
dent
’s t
test
. GA,
ges
tatio
nal a
ge.
* P <
.05;
**
P <
.01.
TABL
E 4
Cont
inue
d
by guest on September 1, 2020www.aappublications.org/newsDownloaded from
4 years of follow-up (ie, available for B4SC assessment) are shown in Table 4 (87% of available infants were able to be assessed in the B4SC, with loss to assessment not being significantly different across gestational groupings).
The Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire–Parent and PEDS assessment of developmental concerns
revealed a similar dose response across the gestational age spectrum. From the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire–Parent, the lower the gestational ages, the higher the scores for hyperactivity but the lower the score for prosocial behaviors.
Importantly, despite reservations about the long-term outlook for
children born at extremes of gestational age, when using the PEDS assessment, 51% of parents of children born at 23 to 24 weeks’ gestation reported minimal concern about their children’s development.
Gestational age had a statistically, but not biologically, significant impact on growth (Table 4).
BERRY et al8
FIGURE 2NCEA performance by gestational age. A, Proportion of children born between 1998 and 2000 with at least 15 years of follow-up who attempt the NCEA. B, Differences in NCEA performance (percentile differences) by gestational age (reference group is 39–40 weeks’ gestation).
by guest on September 1, 2020www.aappublications.org/newsDownloaded from
Education
More than 99% of children with ≥6 years of follow-up data were enrolled in primary school, with no significant differences by gestational age being observed. More than 70% of extremely preterm infants did not have RTLB service or Reading Recovery support.
Epoch 2: NCEA Level 1 Results
Figure 2A reveals the proportion of surviving 15-year-olds for whom NCEA marks were recorded (with the corresponding numbers in Supplemental Table 6), and Fig 2B reveals the average performance. Because the NCEA is the only nationwide high school educational standard recorded in the IDI, no educational data are available for the minority of children who do not have NCEA marks recorded.
Decreasing gestational age was associated with a decrease in the number of adolescents taking the NCEA Level 1 examination as well as a reduction in their NCEA percentiles (which is an estimated ranking produced by the Ministry of Education based on NCEA performance; Fig 2). However, the effect size was small, suggesting that individual variation is much more important when explaining differences in educational achievement (normalized effect size 0.26). Because of the smaller numbers of very premature infants in the cohort born between 1998 and 2000, those born at ≤28 weeks’ gestation were grouped together to provide a precise estimate of percentile performance.
DISCUSSION
Across New Zealand, the resuscitation of periviable infants varies among centers, but the majority of those for whom resuscitation was initiated survived. The factors influencing different resuscitation rates among centers within and outside of New
Zealand are complex8, 49 and cannot be addressed in the current study. Our survival data compare favorably with the international literature, with higher 1-year survival rates than many European and North American centers.50, 51 Because gestational age in New Zealand is almost invariably confirmed by using early–first-trimester ultrasound scanning, high survival rates are unlikely to reflect an inappropriate attribution of a more mature gestational age. Among the survivors, although there is clearly a gestational age effect that persists at least until adolescence, the magnitude of the difference diminishes with age. Additionally, our data consistently reveal that early-term birth is associated with poorer survival, health, educational, and social outcomes.
This study highlights the persistent association between gestations <39 weeks and an increased rate of hospital readmissions, especially for respiratory infection. The additional impact of environmentally modifiable factors (such as adequacy of housing stock)52 on those born preterm needs investigation. Targeted health and social policies may have a role to play in reducing the preterm-associated health disparity.Educational outcomes are reassuring even for periviable infants. Although on a population basis there are preterm-associated deficits, children can perform well at both the primary and high school levels. However, thresholds for specialist educational intervention vary internationally, making meaningful comparisons challenging.24 The majority of those born extremely preterm will attempt the NCEA, and although there is a detectable detrimental effect of any gestational age <39 weeks, prematurity is not incompatible with educational achievement. However, those children who do not attempt the NCEA probably include those with the highest burden of long-term morbidity.
Limitations of the study include the number excluded due to a lack of matching records between the DIA and NMD or loss to follow-up (10% of the possible cohort). Additionally, although the B4SC and NCEA are not mandatory, the majority of children did participate. Finally, some important exposures, such as maternal corticosteroid administration, are not available. However, within New Zealand, almost all mothers in preterm labor from 23 + 0/7 weeks’ gestation will receive at least a partial course of corticosteroids.53
The major strengths of this study are its size, breadth, and use of prospectively recorded whole-population data to get an overview across the full range of gestational ages by using standardized, nationwide outcome measures. The mechanistic basis underpinning these late effects remains to be established.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
We acknowledge those at Statistics New Zealand (Tatauranga Aotearoa) for their assistance in accessing and using the IDI.
PEDIATRICS Volume 142, number 5, November 2018 9
ABBREVIATIONS
B4SC: Before School CheckDIA: Department of Internal
AffairsICD-10: International
Classification of Diseases, 10th Revision
IDI: Integrated Data Infrastructure
MoH: Ministry of HealthNCEA: National Certificate of
Educational AchievementNMD: National Minimum DatasetNZDep: New Zealand Index of
DeprivationPEDS: Parents’ Evaluation of
Developmental StatusRTLB, Resource Teachers: Learning and
Behaviour
by guest on September 1, 2020www.aappublications.org/newsDownloaded from
1. Shah PS, Lui K, Sjörs G, et al; International Network for Evaluating Outcomes (iNeo) of Neonates. Neonatal outcomes of very low birth weight and very preterm neonates: an international comparison. J Pediatr. 2016;177:144–152.e6
2. Ancel PY, Goffinet F, Kuhn P, et al; EPIPAGE-2 Writing Group. Survival and morbidity of preterm children born at 22 through 34 weeks’ gestation in France in 2011: results of the EPIPAGE-2 cohort study [published correction appears in JAMA Pediatr. 2015;169(4):323]. JAMA Pediatr. 2015;169(3):230–238
3. Bode MM, D’Eugenio DB, Forsyth N, Coleman J, Gross CR, Gross SJ. Outcome of extreme prematurity: a prospective comparison of 2 regional cohorts born 20 years apart. Pediatrics. 2009;124(3):866–874
4. Younge N, Goldstein RF, Bann CM, et al; Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Neonatal Research Network. Survival and neurodevelopmental outcomes among periviable infants. N Engl J Med. 2017;376(7):617–628
5. Costeloe KL, Hennessy EM, Haider S, Stacey F, Marlow N, Draper ES. Short term outcomes after extreme preterm birth in England: comparison of two birth cohorts in 1995 and 2006 (the EPICure studies). BMJ. 2012;345:e7976
6. Grisaru-Granovsky S, Reichman B, Lerner-Geva L, et al; Israel Neonatal Network. Population-based trends in
mortality and neonatal morbidities among singleton, very preterm, very low birth weight infants over 16 years. Early Hum Dev. 2014;90(12):821–827
7. Patel RM, Kandefer S, Walsh MC, et al; Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Neonatal Research Network. Causes and timing of death in extremely premature infants from 2000 through 2011. N Engl J Med. 2015;372(4):331–340
8. Rysavy MA, Li L, Bell EF, et al; Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Neonatal Research Network. Between-hospital variation in treatment and outcomes in extremely preterm infants. N Engl J Med. 2015;372(19):1801–1811
9. Raju TN, Mercer BM, Burchfield DJ, Joseph GF Jr. Periviable birth: executive summary of a joint workshop by the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine, American Academy of Pediatrics, and American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2014;210(5):406–417
10. Costeloe K, Hennessy E, Gibson AT, Marlow N, Wilkinson AR. The EPICure study: outcomes to discharge from hospital for infants born at the threshold of viability. Pediatrics. 2000;106(4):659–671
11. Johnson S, Hollis C, Kochhar P, Hennessy E, Wolke D, Marlow N.
Psychiatric disorders in extremely preterm children: longitudinal finding at age 11 years in the EPICure study. J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry. 2010;49(5):453–463.e1
12. Vanhaesebrouck P, Allegaert K, Bottu J, et al; Extremely Preterm Infants in Belgium Study Group. The EPIBEL study: outcomes to discharge from hospital for extremely preterm infants in Belgium. Pediatrics. 2004;114(3): 663–675
13. Serenius F, Källén K, Blennow M, et al; EXPRESS Group. Neurodevelopmental outcome in extremely preterm infants at 2.5 years after active perinatal care in Sweden. JAMA. 2013;309(17):1810–1820
14. Fellman V, Hellström-Westas L, Norman M, et al; EXPRESS Group. One-year survival of extremely preterm infants after active perinatal care in Sweden. JAMA. 2009;301(21):2225–2233
15. Slimings C, Einarsdóttir K, Srinivasjois R, Leonard H. Hospital admissions and gestational age at birth: 18 years of follow up in Western Australia. Paediatr Perinat Epidemiol. 2014;28(6):536–544
16. MacKay DF, Smith GCS, Dobbie R, Pell JP. Gestational age at delivery and special educational need: retrospective cohort study of 407, 503 schoolchildren. PLoS Med. 2010;7(6):e1000289
17. Mathiasen R, Hansen BM, Andersen AM, Forman JL, Greisen G. Gestational age and basic school achievements: a national follow-up study in Denmark. Pediatrics. 2010;126(6). Available at:
BERRY et al10
person, household, business, or organization, and the results in this article have been made confidential to protect these groups from identification and to keep their data safe. Careful consideration has been given to the privacy, security, and confidentiality issues associated with using administrative and survey data in the IDI. Further detail can be found in the privacy impact assessment for the IDI, available at www. stats. govt. nz.
Address correspondence to Mary J. Berry, MBBS, PhD, University of Otago, Wellington, PO Box 7343, Wellington 6242, New Zealand. E-mail: [email protected]
FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE: The authors have indicated they have no financial relationships relevant to this article to disclose.
FUNDING: Funding provided by Cure Kids, New Zealand. The funding body had no input into the design and conduct of the study; collection, management, analysis, and interpretation of the data; preparation, review, or approval of the article; or decision to submit the article for publication.
POTENTIAL CONFLICT OF INTEREST: The authors have indicated they have no potential conflicts of interest to disclose.
by guest on September 1, 2020www.aappublications.org/newsDownloaded from
18. Saigal S, Hoult LA, Streiner DL, Stoskopf BL, Rosenbaum PL. School difficulties at adolescence in a regional cohort of children who were extremely low birth weight. Pediatrics. 2000;105(2):325–331
19. Wolke D, Strauss VY, Johnson S, Gilmore C, Marlow N, Jaekel J. Universal gestational age effects on cognitive and basic mathematic processing: 2 cohorts in 2 countries. J Pediatr. 2015;166(6):1410–1416.e1–e2
20. Bhutta AT, Cleves MA, Casey PH, Cradock MM, Anand KJ. Cognitive and behavioral outcomes of school-aged children who were born preterm: a meta-analysis. JAMA. 2002;288(6):728–737
21. Aarnoudse-Moens CS, Weisglas-Kuperus N, van Goudoever JB, Oosterlaan J. Meta-analysis of neurobehavioral outcomes in very preterm and/or very low birth weight children. Pediatrics. 2009;124(2):717–728
22. Simms V, Cragg L, Gilmore C, Marlow N, Johnson S. Mathematics difficulties in children born very preterm: current research and future directions. Arch Dis Child Fetal Neonatal Ed. 2013;98(5):F457–F463
23. Herber-Jonat S, Streiftau S, Knauss E, et al. Long-term outcome at age 7-10 years after extreme prematurity - a prospective, two centre cohort study of children born before 25 completed weeks of gestation (1999-2003). J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2014;27(16):1620–1626
24. Johnson S, Hennessy E, Smith R, Trikic R, Wolke D, Marlow N. Academic attainment and special educational needs in extremely preterm children at 11 years of age: the EPICure study. Arch Dis Child Fetal Neonatal Ed. 2009;94(4):F283–F289
25. Chan E, Quigley MA. School performance at age 7 years in late preterm and early term birth: a cohort study. Arch Dis Child Fetal Neonatal Ed. 2014;99(6):F451–F457
26. Odd DE, Emond A, Whitelaw A. Long-term cognitive outcomes of infants born moderately and late preterm. Dev Med Child Neurol. 2012;54(8):704–709
27. van Baar AL, Vermaas J, Knots E, de Kleine MJ, Soons P. Functioning at school age of moderately preterm children born at 32 to 36 weeks’ gestational age. Pediatrics. 2009;124(1):251–257
28. Crump C, Sundquist K, Sundquist J, Winkleby MA. Gestational age at birth and mortality in young adulthood. JAMA. 2011;306(11):1233–1240
29. Crump C, Winkleby MA, Sundquist K, Sundquist J. Risk of hypertension among young adults who were born preterm: a Swedish national study of 636, 000 births. Am J Epidemiol. 2011;173(7):797–803
30. Mathiasen R, Hansen BM, Nybo Anderson AM, Greisen G. Socio-economic achievements of individuals born very preterm at the age of 27 to 29 years: a nationwide cohort study. Dev Med Child Neurol. 2009;51(11):901–908
31. Boyle EM, Johnson S, Manktelow B, et al. Neonatal outcomes and delivery of care for infants born late preterm or moderately preterm: a prospective population-based study. Arch Dis Child Fetal Neonatal Ed. 2015;100(6):F479–F485
32. Boyle EM, Poulsen G, Field DJ, et al. Effects of gestational age at birth on health outcomes at 3 and 5 years of age: population based cohort study. BMJ. 2012;344:e896
33. Johnson S, Evans TA, Draper ES, et al. Neurodevelopmental outcomes following late and moderate prematurity: a population-based cohort study. Arch Dis Child Fetal Neonatal Ed. 2015;100(4):F301–F308
34. Machado Júnior LC, Passini Júnior R, Rodrigues Machado Rosa I. Late prematurity: a systematic review. J Pediatr (Rio J). 2014;90(3):221–231
35. Kugelman A, Colin AA. Late preterm infants: near term but still in a critical developmental time period. Pediatrics. 2013;132(4):741–751
36. Noble KG, Fifer WP, Rauh VA, Nomura Y, Andrews HF. Academic achievement varies with gestational age among children born at term. Pediatrics. 2012;130(2). Available at: www. pediatrics. org/ cgi/ content/ full/ 130/ 2/ e257
37. Fleischman AR, Oinuma M, Clark SL. Rethinking the definition of “term pregnancy”. Obstet Gynecol. 2010;116(1):136–139
38. Barber EL, Lundsberg LS, Belanger K, Pettker CM, Funai EF, Illuzzi JL. Indications contributing to the increasing cesarean delivery rate. Obstet Gynecol. 2011;118(1):29–38
39. Statistics New Zealand. Integrated data infrastructure. 2018. Available at: https:// www. stats. govt. nz/ integrated- data/ integrated- data- infrastructure/ . Accessed September 15, 2018
41. Black A. The IDI prototype spine’s creation and coverage: Statistics New Zealand Working Paper No 16–03. 2016. Available at: http:// archive. stats. govt. nz/ methods/ research- papers/ working- papers- original/ idi- prototype- spine. aspx. Accessed December 6, 2017
42. Statistics New Zealand. Quality and the integrated data infrastructure prototype spine. 2015. Available at: http:// archive. stats. govt. nz/ browse_ for_ stats/ snapshots- of- nz/ integrated- data- infrastructure/ idi- resources/ quality- and- idi- proto- spine. aspx. Accessed December 6, 2017
43. Salmond CE, Crampton P. Development of New Zealand’s deprivation index (NZDep) and its uptake as a national policy tool. Can J Public Health. 2012;103(8, suppl 2):S7–S11
44. Ministry of Health. Well child/Tamariki Ora programme practitioner handbook - revised 2014. 2013. Available at: www. health. govt. nz/ publication/ well- child- tamariki- ora- programme- practitioner- handbook- 2013. Accessed December 15, 2017
45. Goodman R. The Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire: a research note. J Child Psychol Psychiatry. 1997;38(5):581–586
46. Ministry of Education; Education Counts. Homeschooling. Available at: https:// www. educationcounts. govt. nz/ statistics/ schooling/ student- numbers/ homeschooling. Accessed July 3, 2017
PEDIATRICS Volume 142, number 5, November 2018 11 by guest on September 1, 2020www.aappublications.org/newsDownloaded from
47. Ministry of Education. Annual monitoring of reading recovery: the data for 2015 analysis and research. 2016. Available at: www. educationcounts. govt. nz/__ data/ assets/ pdf_ file/ 0004/ 180769/ 2015- Annual- Monitoring- of- Reading- Recovery. pdf. Accessed December 15, 2017
48. R Core Team. A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. Vienna, Austria: R Core Team; 2016
49. Anderson JG, Baer RJ, Partridge JC, et al. Survival and major morbidity
of extremely preterm infants: a population-based study. Pediatrics. 2016;138(1):e20154434
50. Stensvold HJ, Klingenberg C, Stoen R, et al; Norwegian Neonatal Network. Neonatal morbidity and 1-year survival of extremely preterm infants. Pediatrics. 2017;139(3):e20161821
51. Gallagher K, Martin J, Keller M, Marlow N. European variation in decision-making and parental involvement during preterm birth.
52. Emond AM, Howat P, Evans J-A, Hunt L. The effects of housing on the health of preterm infants. Paediatr Perinat Epidemiol. 1997;11(2):228–239
53. Berry MJ, Saito-Benz M, Gray C, et al. Outcomes of 23- and 24-weeks gestation infants in Wellington, New Zealand: a single centre experience. Sci Rep. 2017;7(1): 12769
BERRY et al12 by guest on September 1, 2020www.aappublications.org/newsDownloaded from
DOI: 10.1542/peds.2018-1016 originally published online October 31, 2018; 2018;142;Pediatrics
PierseMary J. Berry, Tim Foster, Kate Rowe, Oliver Robertson, Bridget Robson and Nevil
Gestational Age, Health, and Educational Outcomes in Adolescents
ServicesUpdated Information &
http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/142/5/e20181016including high resolution figures, can be found at:
Referenceshttp://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/142/5/e20181016#BIBLThis article cites 45 articles, 19 of which you can access for free at:
Subspecialty Collections
http://www.aappublications.org/cgi/collection/epidemiology_subEpidemiologybhttp://www.aappublications.org/cgi/collection/infectious_diseases_suInfectious Diseasehttp://www.aappublications.org/cgi/collection/neonatology_subNeonatologysubhttp://www.aappublications.org/cgi/collection/fetus:newborn_infant_Fetus/Newborn Infantfollowing collection(s): This article, along with others on similar topics, appears in the
Permissions & Licensing
http://www.aappublications.org/site/misc/Permissions.xhtmlin its entirety can be found online at: Information about reproducing this article in parts (figures, tables) or
Reprintshttp://www.aappublications.org/site/misc/reprints.xhtmlInformation about ordering reprints can be found online:
by guest on September 1, 2020www.aappublications.org/newsDownloaded from