Scholarlink

Background <p>High-risk infant follow-up (HRIF) lacks universal definition. The aim of this study was to report current practice and factors used to identify eligibility for HRIF, yielding information which may provide a basis for future consensus.</p> Methods <p>A survey was prepared for a workshop at the 15th International Newborn Brain Conference on prediction of outcome, which was subsequently distributed to all attendees (<i>n</i> = 426).</p> Results <p>Follow-up was offered by 97% of respondents (<i>n</i> = 113/116). HRIF was offered to infants born &lt;28 weeks by 47%, to those &lt;32 weeks by two-thirds (66%) and to preterms based on neuroimaging by 54%. For infants born full-term, HRIF was offered by 88% in neonatal encephalopathy (NE) and 86% in neonatal stroke. HRIF continued most frequently until 24 months corrected (33.6%). For guiding prognosis in preterm infants, 22% (<i>n</i> = 25) selected neuroimaging as the most important factor. For NE, 54% (<i>n</i> = 63) selected neuroimaging findings as the most important factor in guiding prognosis and 14% (<i>n</i> = 16) selected EEG/aEEG. Social factors are not considered by 46% in determining HRIF eligibility.</p> Conclusion <p>Significant variability in HRIF exists, without consensus. Awareness of factors predicting prognosis and the importance of social risk-factors must improve to allow accurate identification of those at highest risk. This information may act as a basis for future consensus on HRIF.</p> Impact <p><UnorderedList Mark="Bullet"> <ItemContent> <p>There is no clear consensus on eligibility or duration of high-risk infant follow-up. We report current practice in, and factors used to identify eligibility for same, amongst attendees of the International Newborn Brain Conference.</p> </ItemContent> <ItemContent> <p>This information on international practice may provide a basis for future consensus.</p> </ItemContent> <ItemContent> <p>Given the importance of accurate prognostication in risk-stratification, we report participants’ awareness of the most important factors guiding prognosis.</p> </ItemContent> <ItemContent> <p>A disconnect between the impact of social factors on outcome and their consideration for eligibility of high-risk infant follow-up is noted. We propose the need for guidelines on follow-up of socially disadvantaged, medically high-risk infants.</p> </ItemContent> </UnorderedList></p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

High-risk infant follow-up: current practice and factors determining eligibility

  • 期刊论文

  • 出版模式：

    开放获取

  • 发表日期：

    2025年6月10日

查看全文
  • Danielle Clifford,
  • Sylke Steggerda,
  • Nathalie Maitre,
  • Linda S. de Vries,
  • Deirdre M. Murray,
  • Mariarita Capizzi,
  • Julia Buchmayer,
  • Jehier Afifi,
  • Medha Goyal,
  • Renato S. Procianoy,
  • Hiroyuki Kidokoro,
  • Sonika Agarwal,
  • Rita C. Silveira,
  • Jennifer Armstrong,
  • André M. Graça,
  • Samantha Sadoo,
  • Jennifer C. Keene,
  • Antti Kukka,
  • Catarina Cordeiro,
  • Andrea C. Pardo,
  • Sonal Rakshpaul,
  • Emma Butler,
  • Laurel A. Slaughter,
  • Nicholas William Nicoletti,
  • Jessica Wickland,
  • Nuria Boronat-Gonzalez,
  • Monique van de Lagemaat,
  • Elisabetta Chiodin,
  • Iyshwarya Stapleton,
  • Tatiana Nuzum,
  • Anna Tuiskula,
  • Elise Roze,
  • Anne Murray,
  • Sophie Tremblay,
  • Keimarisse Colón-Díaz,
  • Srishti Jayakumar,
  • Albertina Rego,
  • Jennifer Check

摘要

Background

High-risk infant follow-up (HRIF) lacks universal definition. The aim of this study was to report current practice and factors used to identify eligibility for HRIF, yielding information which may provide a basis for future consensus.

Methods

A survey was prepared for a workshop at the 15th International Newborn Brain Conference on prediction of outcome, which was subsequently distributed to all attendees (n = 426).

Results

Follow-up was offered by 97% of respondents (n = 113/116). HRIF was offered to infants born <28 weeks by 47%, to those <32 weeks by two-thirds (66%) and to preterms based on neuroimaging by 54%. For infants born full-term, HRIF was offered by 88% in neonatal encephalopathy (NE) and 86% in neonatal stroke. HRIF continued most frequently until 24 months corrected (33.6%). For guiding prognosis in preterm infants, 22% (n = 25) selected neuroimaging as the most important factor. For NE, 54% (n = 63) selected neuroimaging findings as the most important factor in guiding prognosis and 14% (n = 16) selected EEG/aEEG. Social factors are not considered by 46% in determining HRIF eligibility.

Conclusion

Significant variability in HRIF exists, without consensus. Awareness of factors predicting prognosis and the importance of social risk-factors must improve to allow accurate identification of those at highest risk. This information may act as a basis for future consensus on HRIF.

Impact

There is no clear consensus on eligibility or duration of high-risk infant follow-up. We report current practice in, and factors used to identify eligibility for same, amongst attendees of the International Newborn Brain Conference.

This information on international practice may provide a basis for future consensus.

Given the importance of accurate prognostication in risk-stratification, we report participants’ awareness of the most important factors guiding prognosis.

A disconnect between the impact of social factors on outcome and their consideration for eligibility of high-risk infant follow-up is noted. We propose the need for guidelines on follow-up of socially disadvantaged, medically high-risk infants.