Objective After lowering the Dutch threshold for active treatment from 25 to 24 completed weeks' gestation, survival to discharge increased by 10% in extremely preterm live born infants. Now that... Show moreObjective After lowering the Dutch threshold for active treatment from 25 to 24 completed weeks' gestation, survival to discharge increased by 10% in extremely preterm live born infants. Now that this guideline has been implemented, an accurate description of neurodevelopmental outcome at school age is needed.Design Population-based cohort study.Setting All neonatal intensive care units in the Netherlands.Patients All infants born between 24(0/7) and 26(6/7 )weeks' gestation who were 5.5 years' corrected age (CA) in 2018-2020 were included.Main outcome measures Main outcome measure was neurodevelopmental outcome at 5.5 years. Neurodevelopmental outcome was a composite outcome defined as none, mild or moderate-to-severe impairment (further defined as neurodevelopmental impairment (NDI)), using corrected cognitive score (Wechsler Preschool and Primary Scale of Intelligence Scale-III-NL), neurological examination and neurosensory function. Additionally, motor score (Movement Assessment Battery for Children-2-NL) was assessed. All assessments were done as part of the nationwide, standardised follow-up programme.Results In the 3-year period, a total of 632 infants survived to 5.5 years' CA. Data were available for 484 infants (77%). At 5.5 years' CA, most cognitive and motor (sub)scales were significantly lower compared with the normative mean. Overall, 46% had no impairment, 36% had mild impairment and 18% had NDI. NDI-free survival was 30%, 49% and 67% in live born children at 24, 25 and 26 weeks' gestation, respectively (p<0.001).Conclusions After lowering the threshold for supporting active treatment from 25 to 24 completed weeks' gestation, a considerable proportion of the surviving extremely preterm children did not have any impairment at 5.5 years' CA. Show less
OBJECTIVESTo investigate the effectiveness of routine ultrasonography in the third trimester in reducing adverse perinatal outcomes in low risk pregnancies compared with usual care and the effect... Show moreOBJECTIVESTo investigate the effectiveness of routine ultrasonography in the third trimester in reducing adverse perinatal outcomes in low risk pregnancies compared with usual care and the effect of this policy on maternal outcomes and obstetric interventions.DESIGNPragmatic, multicentre, stepped wedge cluster randomised trial.SETTING60 midwifery practices in the Netherlands.PARTICIPANTS13 046 women aged 16 years or older with a low risk singleton pregnancy.INTERVENTIONS60 midwifery practices offered usual care (serial fundal height measurements with clinically indicated ultrasonography). After 3, 7, and 10 months, a third of the practices were randomised to the intervention strategy. As well as receiving usual care, women in the intervention strategy were offered two routine biometry scans at 28-30 and 34-36 weeks' gestation. The same multidisciplinary protocol for detecting and managing fetal growth restriction was used in both strategies.MAIN OUTCOME MEASURESThe primary outcome measure was a composite of severe adverse perinatal outcomes: perinatal death, Apgar score <4, impaired consciousness, asphyxia, seizures, assisted ventilation, septicaemia, meningitis, bronchopulmonary dysplasia, intraventricular haemorrhage, periventricular leucomalacia, or necrotising enterocolitis. Secondary outcomes were two composite measures of severe maternal morbidity, and spontaneous labour and birth.RESULTSBetween 1 February 2015 and 29 February 2016, 60 midwifery practices enrolled 13 520 women in mid-pregnancy (mean 22.8 (SD 2.4) weeks' gestation). 13 046 women (intervention n=7067, usual care n=5979) with data based on the national Dutch perinatal registry or hospital records were included in the analyses. Small for gestational age at birth was significantly more often detected in the intervention group than in the usual care group (179 of 556 (32%) v 78 of 407 (19%), P<0.001). The incidence of severe adverse perinatal outcomes was 1.7% (n=118) for the intervention strategy and 1.8% (n=106) for usual care. After adjustment for confounders, the difference between the groups was not significant (odds ratio 0.88, 95% confidence interval 0.70 to 1.20). The intervention strategy showed a higher incidence of induction of labour (1.16, 1.04 to 1.30) and a lower incidence of augmentation of labour (0.78, 0.71 to 0.85). Maternal outcomes and other obstetric interventions did not differ between the strategies.CONCLUSIONIn low risk pregnancies, routine ultrasonography in the third trimester along with clinically indicated ultrasonography was associated with higher antenatal detection of small for gestational age fetuses but not with a reduced incidence of severe adverse perinatal outcomes compared with usual care alone. The findings do not support routine ultrasonography Show less
