I just ran across this article on another preemie's blog and it makes me count our blessings for several different reasons. First, because Ben fared so well when the odds were stacked against him and he could have faced a lifetime of overcoming disabilities. Next, because with each passing day this baby is growing bigger and stronger. We're nearly past the most critical weeks in terms of survival, although it will still be a while until we're in the "safer" preemie weeks. Our focus and goal is 38 weeks and a scheduled c-section in mid-July and we're getting there one day at a time! Finally, every time I read anything like this I'm so grateful to all the doctors and nurses at Texas Children's for their amazing dedication and care and I realize how fortunate we were to be living so near to a world-class NICU. They accepted babies from all over the state so a lot of parents didn't have the luxury of visiting their baby every day like we did.
We found out that having a little white male preemie is about the worst category since they tend to fare the poorest, but it was really sobering to see numbers associated with the different risk categories.
April 16, 2008, 11:35PM
New way to assess preemies' chances
Calculator considers factors like sex, weight
By TODD ACKERMAN
Copyright 2008 Houston Chronicle
Doctors and parents facing anguished decisions about the treatment of very premature babies will now have better information thanks to an
online calculator that emphasizes more than just how long the infant was in the womb.
The statistical tool is based on a study led by University of Texas Medical School at Houston researchers, who found factors such as weight and gender also strongly influence outcome when babies are at the fringes of viability.
"This was born of some degree of frustration that we can't give these parents a better sense of their baby's chances," said Dr. Nehal Parikh, a UT-Houston professor of pediatrics and one of the study's authors. "At such sensitive times, it'll mark a significant improvement to be able to share evidence-based data about how infants on average fare."
The calculator furnishes estimates of risk based on data from the study. Doctors (or parents) plug in five total factors and the calculator determines the likelihood of such a baby surviving, as well as the odds of him or her having moderate or profound impairment.
The factors, besides gestational age, birth weight and sex (girls fare better), are whether the mother received prenatal steroids to help fetal lungs mature and whether the infant was a single delivery rather than one of twins or more.
The study, published in today's New England Journal of Medicine, looked at babies born 22 to 25 weeks after conception, the tiniest, frailest category of pre-term infants. About 15,000 such babies are born annually, and they require aggressive intensive care to be kept alive.
Many nevertheless die soon after birth, while some survive and reach adulthood, pretty much unaffected. The rest experience some disability, ranging from having to wear leg braces to severe cerebral palsy and profound intellectual disability.
Current guidelines give odds of survival based solely on gestational age, though many doctors said they tell parents the likelihood may be better or worse. They acknowledged, however, that the adjustments they make are more intuitive than scientific.
In addition, the study suggests the factors may be more significant than doctors had thought. It found that a baby born at 23 gestational weeks would have the equivalent chance of one born at 24 weeks if the sex were female, the mother got steroids, there were no other babies born alongside, or he or she weighed an additional 2/10 of a pound. More than one of the factors in the baby's favor increases the equivalent age slightly.
"Until now, all we knew was survival data based on gestational age," said Dr. Eric Eichenwald, a Baylor College of Medicine pediatrician and the co-author of a commentary that accompanied the paper in the journal. "Even if many doctors already told parents that these other factors influence outcome, I think this shows they have a bigger effect than most would have thought."
No recommendation
A number of doctors said the new information would give parents a better sense of the possible burdens of intensive care.
But no neonatologists interviewed said they thought the new information would result in more decisions to provide only comfort care to the baby, to not pursue the sort of aggressive therapy that might save him or her but is also painful. The study makes no recommendation of when aggressive care would be inappropriate.
Parikh said that is a decision for individual parents and doctors to make. Currently the odds of survival are so long for infants born in the 22nd week of pregnancy that it is not uncommon for only comfort care to be provided. Infants born in the 25th week, on the other hand, routinely receive intensive care.
But as long as a doctor tells parents there is a chance the baby will survive, the vast majority want everything done, said Dr. Daniel Batton, a member of the American Academy of Pediatricians' committee on fetus and newborn.
"I don't think this new study is going to change that," said Batton, whose committee is working on guidelines that will incorporate the study. "I think this is an important study that pulls information together into one package and will stimulate conversation, but I don't think it'll change parents' decisions."
The study of 4,446 infants found 49 percent died and 21 percent survived without a disability. About 12 percent survived with significant impairments such as blindness or cerebral palsy, and another 12 percent had more severe disabilities.
The study was conducted between 1998 and 2003 at a network of academic centers, including Memorial Hermann Children's Hospital in Houston, with the most advanced neonatal care facilities.
Researchers stressed they don't know yet how well the calculator's data will translate to less sophisticated hospitals. They called for parents scheduled to deliver prematurely to go to academic centers if possible because they so improve outcomes.
The National Institute of Child Health and Human Development provided funding and researchers for the study.
todd.ackerman@chron.com