Please wait a minute...
J Zhejiang Univ (Med Sci)  2022, Vol. 51 Issue (1): 73-78    DOI: 10.3724/zdxbyxb-2021-0217
    
Comparison of different neonatal illness severity scores in predicting mortality risk of extremely low birth weight infants
YANG Yang1,2,CHI Xia1,TONG Meiling1,*,ZHOU Xiaoyu2,CHENG Rui2,PAN Jingjing3,CHEN Xiaoqing3
1. Department of Child Healthcare, Women’s Hospital of Nanjing Medical University, Nanjing Maternity and Child Health Care Hospital, Nanjing 210004, China;
2. Department of Neonatology, Children’s Hospital of Nanjing Medical University, Nanjing 210008, China;
3. Department of Neonatology, the First Affiliated Hospital of Nanjing Medical University, Nanjing 210036, China
Download: HTML( 3 )   PDF(2264KB)
Export: BibTeX | EndNote (RIS)      

Abstract  

Objective:To compare different illness severity scores in predicting mortality risk of extremely low birth weight infants (ELBWI). Methods:From January 1st, 2019 to January 1st, 2020, all ELBWI admitted in the Children’s Hospital of Nanjing Medical University, Nanjing Maternity and Child Health Care Hospital and the First Affiliated Hospital of Nanjing Medical University were included in the study. ELBWI with admission age ≥1?h, gestational age ≥37 weeks and incomplete data required for scoring were excluded. The clinical data were collected, neonatal critical illness score (NCIS), score for neonatal acute physiology version Ⅱ (SNAP-Ⅱ), simplified version of the score for neonatal acute physiology perinatal extension (SNAPPE-Ⅱ), clinical risk index for babies (CRIB) and CRIB-Ⅱ were calculated. The scores of the fatal group and the survival group were compared, and the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve was used to evaluate the predictive value of the above illness severity scores for the mortality risk of ELBWI. Pearson correlation analysis was used to analyze the correlation between illness scores and birth weight, illness scores and gestational age. Results:A total of 192 ELBWI were finally included, of whom 114 cases survived (survival group) and 78 cases died (fatal group). There were significant differences in birth weight, gestational age and Apgar scores between fatal group and survival group (all P<0.01). There were significant differences in NCIS, SNAP-Ⅱ, SNAPPE-Ⅱ, CRIB and CRIB-Ⅱ between fatal group and survival group (allP<0.01). The CRIB had a relatively higher predictive value for the mortality risk. Its area under the ROC curve (AUC) was 0.787, the sensitivity was 0.678, the specificity was 0.804, and the Youden index was 0.482. The scores of NCIS, SNAP-Ⅱ, SNAPPE-Ⅱ, CRIB and CRIB-Ⅱ were significantly correlated with birth weight and gestational age (allP<0.05). The correlation coefficients of CRIB-Ⅱ and CRIB with birth weight and gestational age were relatively large, and the correlations coefficients of NCIS with birth weight and gestational age were the smallest (0.191 and 0.244, respectively).Conclusion:Among these five illness severity scores, CRIB has better predictive value for the mortality risk in ELBWI. NCIS, which is widely used in China, has relatively lower sensitivity and specificity, and needs to be further revised.



Key wordsNeonate      Extremely low birth weight infant      Illness severity score      Death      Risk prediction     
Received: 03 August 2021      Published: 17 May 2022
CLC:  R722  
Corresponding Authors: TONG Meiling   
Cite this article:

YANG Yang,CHI Xia,TONG Meiling,ZHOU Xiaoyu,CHENG Rui,PAN Jingjing,CHEN Xiaoqing. Comparison of different neonatal illness severity scores in predicting mortality risk of extremely low birth weight infants. J Zhejiang Univ (Med Sci), 2022, 51(1): 73-78.

URL:

https://www.zjujournals.com/med/10.3724/zdxbyxb-2021-0217     OR     https://www.zjujournals.com/med/Y2022/V51/I1/73


不同新生儿危重评分对超低体重儿死亡风险的预测价值比较

目的:比较不同危重评分对超低体重儿死亡风险的预测价值。方法:收集2019年1月1日至2020年1月1日南京医科大学附属儿童医院、南京医科大学附属妇产医院、南京医科大学第一附属医院新生儿科收治的所有超低体重儿,排除入院年龄1?h及以上、胎龄37周及以上、各项评分所需资料不全者。收集患儿的临床资料,计算患儿新生儿危重病例评分(NCIS)、新生儿急性生理学评分Ⅱ(SNAP-Ⅱ)、新生儿急性生理学评分围产期补充Ⅱ(SNAPPE-Ⅱ)、新生儿临床危险指数(CRIB)和新生儿临床危险指数Ⅱ(CRIB-Ⅱ)。比较死亡组与存活组的各项危重评分,采用受试者操作特征曲线评估各项危重评分对超低体重儿死亡风险的预测价值,并采用Pearson相关分析法分析各项危重评分与超低体重儿出生体重和胎龄的相关性。结果:共纳入192例超低体重儿,其中存活114例,死亡78例。死亡组与存活组出生体重、胎龄及阿普卡评分差异均有统计学意义(均P<0.01)。死亡组与存活组NCIS、SNAP-Ⅱ、SNAPPE-Ⅱ、CRIB和CRIB-Ⅱ评分差异均有统计学意义(均P<0.01),但CRIB对患儿死亡风险的预测价值相对较高,其曲线下面积为0.787,敏感度为0.678,特异度为0.804,约登指数为0.482。各评分与超低体重儿出生体重和胎龄均存在一定的相关性(均P<0.05),其中CRIB-Ⅱ和CRIB与超低体重儿出生体重和胎龄的相关系数较大,而NCIS与超低体重儿出生体重和胎龄的相关系数在五种评分中均最小(分别为0.191和0.244)。结论:五种危重评分中,CRIB对于超低体重儿的死亡风险预测价值更高,而我国主导推广的NCIS的敏感度及特异度相对较低,需要进一步修订以适应临床需要。


关键词: 新生儿,  超低体重儿,  危重疾病评分,  死亡,  风险预测 

组别

n

入院年龄

(h)

出生体重

(g)

胎龄

(周)

性别

(男/女)

羊水性质

(正常/异常)

孕母感染

(有/无)

1?min阿普卡评分

5?min阿普卡评分

存活组

114

0.28(0.18,0.59)

864±103

27.6±2.0

48/66

90/24

33/81

7.1±2.1

8.4±1.4

死亡组

78

0.36(0.20,0.62)

799±131

26.5±2.0

42/36

63/15

28/50

5.7±2.5

7.8±1.7

Z/t′/t/χ2

–1.254

3.663

3.679

2.564

0.095

1.032

4.147

2.935

P

>0.05

<0.01

<0.01

>0.05

>0.05

>0.05

<0.01

<0.01

Table 1 Baseline data of fatal group and survival group of extremely low birth weight infants

组别

n

NCIS

SNAP-Ⅱ

SNAPPE-Ⅱ

CRIB

CRIB-Ⅱ

存活组

114

94±7

9(5,17)

26.00(17.00,36.25)

3.00(1.00,5.00)

9.89±2.37

死亡组

78

89±6

16(7,29)

39.50(22.00,56.75)

7.00(2.75,10.25)

11.79±2.83

Z/t

4.082

–3.313

–3.546

–5.624

–5.056

P

<0.01

<0.01

<0.01

<0.01

<0.01

Table 2 Illness severity scores of fatal group and survival group of extremely low birth weight infants
Figure 1 Receiver operating characteristic curves of illness severity scores in predicting clinical outcomes of extremely low birth weigh infants

危重评分名称

敏感度

特异度

约登指数

AUC

AUC(95%CI

标准误

P

NCIS

0.390

0.856

0.246

0.667(0.580~0.753)

0.044

<0.01

SNAP-Ⅱ

0.373

0.897

0.270

0.653(0.561~0.744)

0.047

<0.01

SNAPPE-Ⅱ

0.593

0.784

0.377

0.688(0.596~0.780)

0.047

<0.01

CRIB

0.678

0.804

0.482

0.787(0.712~0.862)

0.038

<0.01

CRIB-Ⅱ

0.559

0.794

0.353

0.730(0.647~0.813)

0.042

<0.01

Table 3 Sensitivity, specificity, Youden’s index and AUC of illness severity scores in predicting clinical outcomes of extremely low birth weigh infants

危重评分名称

与出生体重的相关性

与出生胎龄的相关性

r

P

r

P

NCIS

0.191

<0.05

0.244

<0.01

SNAP-Ⅱ

0.307

<0.01

0.290

<0.01

SNAPPE-Ⅱ

0.488

<0.01

0.396

<0.01

CRIB

0.576

<0.01

0.805

<0.01

CRIB-Ⅱ

0.701

<0.01

0.520

<0.01

Table 4 Results of correlation analysis of illness severity scores with birth weight and gestational age in extremely low birth weigh infants
[1]   NATARAJANG, SHANKARANS. Short- and long-term outcomes of moderate and late preterm infants[J]Amer J Perinatol, 2016, 33( 3): 305-317.
doi: 10.1055/s-0035-1571150
[2]   KIERANE, SARAR, CLAYDONJ, et al.Outcomes of neonates with complex medical needs[J]Adv Neonatal Care, 2019, 19( 4): 275-284.
doi: 10.1097/ANC.0000000000000639
[3]   RICHARDSOND K, CORCORANJ D, ESCOBARG J, et al.SNAP-Ⅱ and SNAPPE-Ⅱ: simplified newborn illness severity and mortality risk scores[J]J Pediatr, 2001, 138( 1): 92-100.
doi: 10.1067/mpd.2001.109608
[4]   The International Neonatal Network. The CRIB (clinical risk index for babies) score: a tool for assessing initial neonatal risk and comparing performance of neonatal intensive care units[J]Lancet, 1993, 342( 8865): 193-198.
doi: 10.1016/0140-6736(93)92296-6
[5]   VAKRILOVA L, EMILOVA Z, SLŬNCHEVA B, et al. Using the CRIB as an early prognostic index for very low birthweight infants, treated in neonatal intensive careunites[J]. Akush Ginekol (Sofiia), 2007, 46 Suppl 1: 66-73
[6]   中华医学会急诊分会儿科学组, 中华医学会儿科学分会急诊学组、新生儿学组. 新生儿危重病例评分法(草案)[J]. 中华儿科杂志, 2001, 39(1): 42-43
[7]   PARRYG, TUCKERJ, TARNOW-MORDIW, et al.CRIB Ⅱ: an update of the clinical risk index for babies score[J]Lancet, 2003, 361( 9371): 1789-1791.
doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(03)13397-1
[8]   REIDS, BAJUKB, LUIK, et al.Comparing CRIB-Ⅱ and SNAPPE-Ⅱ as mortality predictors for very preterm infants[J]J Paediatr Child Health, 2015, 51( 5): 524-528.
doi: 10.1111/jpc.12742
[9]   IACOBELLIS, BONSANTEF, QUANTINC, et al.Total plasma protein in very preterm babies: prognostic value and comparison with illness severity scores[J/OL]PLoS ONE, 2013, 8( 4): e62210.
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0062210
[10]   超未成熟儿与超低出生体重儿研究协作组. 超未成熟儿与超低出生体重儿住院并发症分析[J]. 中华儿科杂志, 2015, 53(5): 334-340
Collaborative Study Group for Extremely Preterm & Extremely Low Birth Weight Infants. The morbidities of extremely preterm and extremely low birth weight infants during hospitalization[J]. Chinese Journal of Pediatrics, 2015, 53(5): 334-340. (in Chinese)
[11]   GAGLIARDIL, CAVAZZAA, BRUNELLIA, et al.Assessing mortality risk in very low birthweight infants: a comparison of CRIB, CRIB-II, and SNAPPE-II[J]Arch Dis Child Fetal Neonatal Ed, 2004, 89( 5): F419-F422.
doi: 10.1136/adc.2003.031286
[12]   MCLEODJ S, MENONA, MATUSKON, et al.Comparing mortality risk models in VLBW and preterm infants: systematic review and meta-analysis[J]J Perinatol, 2020, 40( 5): 695-703.
doi: 10.1038/s41372-020-0650-0
[13]   陈克正, 吕 回, 赖月华, 等. 新生儿疾病危重度评分系统的临床应用[J]. 中国实用儿科杂志, 2002, 17(4): 207-210
CHEN Kezheng, LYU Hui, LAI Yuehua, et al. Application of critical-scoring-system in assessing neonatal acute severity[J]. Chinese Journal of Practical Pediatrics, 2002, 17(4): 207-210. (in Chinese)
[14]   KANDASAMYY, RUDDD, SMITHR. The relationship between body weight, cystatin C and serum creatinine in neonates[J]J Neonatal Perinatal Med, 2017, 10( 4): 419-423.
doi: 10.3233/NPM-171719
[15]   YANGY, LIS J, PANJ J, et al.Reference values for serum cystatin C in very low-birthweight infants: from two centres of China[J]J Paediatr Child Health, 2018, 54( 3): 284-288.
doi: 10.1111/jpc.13732
[1] LYU Duo,XIE Xishao,ZHANG Xiaohui,CHEN Jianghua. Associations of mean arterial pressure levels with mortality in patients with peritoneal dialysis[J]. J Zhejiang Univ (Med Sci), 2019, 48(2): 180-185.
[2] CHEN Dong,HU Yuanjun,WU Yurui,LI Xiaoying. Risk factors of death in newborns with congenital diaphragmatic hernia[J]. J Zhejiang Univ (Med Sci), 2019, 48(1): 83-88.
[3] LIN Meina,XU Ruiyuan,ZHANG Tao,ZHANG Lin,MEI Xuqiao. Expression of c-FLIP in peripheral blood mononuclear cells of patients with rheumatoid arthritis and its relation with extrinsic apoptotic pathway[J]. J Zhejiang Univ (Med Sci), 2018, 47(4): 381-388.
[4] WANG Ke, ZHAO Dong-qing, ZHANG Jian-jun, LI Yu-jian, ZHANG Hai-dong, SHEN Zhang-feng, HU Bin, WU Hai-bin. Risk factors of progressive brain contusion and relationship with outcome[J]. J Zhejiang Univ (Med Sci), 2015, 44(4): 410-416.
[5] FANG Yihu,ZHANG Keli,YU Haisheng,LI Xuan,ZHENG Taiping,HONG Taishan,CAO Liu. Retrospective analysis of 202 pathological autopsy cases in medical dispute[J]. J Zhejiang Univ (Med Sci), 2013, 42(4): 456-460.
[6] Fu Guosheng, Shan Jiang, Meissner A. QT Dispersion and Sudden Cardiac Death in Patients with Congestive Heart Failure due to Either Ischemic or Idiopathic Dilated Cardiomyo pathy[J]. J Zhejiang Univ (Med Sci), 1999, 28(1): 4-7.
[7] Shang Shiqiang, Hong Wenlan, Shi Yifu, et al. DETECTION OF CYTOMEGALOVIRUS AND TOXOPLASMA GONDII INFECTION IN FETAL TISSUES OF ABORTION AND STILLBIRTHS BY PCR TECHNIQUE[J]. J Zhejiang Univ (Med Sci), 1996, 25(3): 100-103.