Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-94fs2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-05T09:50:07.422Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Chapter 44 - Early Outcomes after Extremely Preterm Birth

from Section 4 - Specific Conditions Associated with Fetal and Neonatal Brain Injury

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  13 December 2017

By
Susan R. Hintz
Edited by
David K. Stevenson ,
William E. Benitz ,
Philip Sunshine ,
Susan R. Hintz  and
Maurice L. Druzin
David K. Stevenson
Affiliation:
Stanford University, California
William E. Benitz
Affiliation:
Stanford University, California
Philip Sunshine
Affiliation:
Stanford University, California
Susan R. Hintz
Affiliation:
Stanford University, California
Maurice L. Druzin
Affiliation:
Stanford University, California
Get access

Summary

A summary is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Chapter
Information
Fetal and Neonatal Brain Injury , pp. 706 - 724
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2017

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Blencowe, H, Cousens, S, Oestergaard, M, et al. National, regional and worldwide estimates of preterm birth. Lancet 2012; 379(9832): 2162–72.Google Scholar
Martin, JA, Hamilton, BE, Osterman, MJK, et al. Births: final data for 2013. National Vital Statistics Reports 2015; 64(1); available at www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr64/nvsr64_01.pdf.Google Scholar
March of Dimes. Peristats, 2015. Available at www.marchofdimes.org/peristats/Peristats.aspx (acessed December 10, 2015).Google Scholar
Raju, TNK, Mercer, BM, Burchfield, DJ, et al. 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. Obstet Gynecol 2014; 123: 1083–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stoll, BJ, Hansen, NI, Bell, EF, et al. Trends in care practices, morbidity and mortality of extremely preterm neonates, 1993–2012. JAMA 2015; 314(10): 1039–51.Google Scholar
Zegers, MJ, Hukkelhoven, CWPM, Uiterwaal, CSPM, et al. Changing Dutch approach and trends in short-term outcome of periviable preterms. Arch Dis Child Fetal Neonatal Ed 2016; 101: F391–6.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Anthony, S, den Ouden, L, Brand, R, et al. Changes in perinatal care and survival in very preterm and extremely preterm infants in the Netherlands between 1983–1995. Eur J Obstet Gyn Reprod Biol 2004; 112: 170–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Finnstrom, O, Olausson, PO, Sedin, G, et al. The Swedish national prospective study on extremely low birth weight (ELBW) infants: incidence, mortality, morbidity, and survival in relation to level of care. Acta Paediatr 1997; 86: 501–11.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Serenius, F, Ewald, U, Farooqui, A, et al. Short-term outcome after active perinatal management at 23–25 weeks of gestation: a study from two Swedish tertiary care centres. 2. Infant survival. Acta Paediatr 2004; 93: 1081–9.Google Scholar
The EXPRESS Group. One-year survival of extremely preterm infants after active perinatal care in Sweden. JAMA 2009; 301(21): 2225–33.Google Scholar
Costeloe, K, Hennessy, E, Gibson, AT, et al. The EPICure Study: outcomes to discharge from hospital for infants born at the threshold of viability. Pediatrics 2000; 106: 659–71.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Costeloe, K, Henessy, EM, Haider, S, et al. 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.Google Scholar
Ancel, P-Y, Goffinet, F, 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. JAMA Pediatr 2015; 169: 230–8.Google Scholar
Doyle, LW, VICS Group. Neonatal intensive care at borderline viability: is it worth it? Early Hum Dev 2004; 80: 103–13.Google Scholar
Doyle, LW. Evaluation of neonatal intensive care for extremely-low-birth-weight infants. Semin Fetal Neonatal Med 2006; 11: 139–45.Google Scholar
Doyle, LW, VICS Group. Evaluation of neonatal intensive care for extremely low birth weight infants in Victoria over two decades. II. Efficiency. Pediatrics 2004; 113: 511–14.Google ScholarPubMed
Doyle, LW, Roberts, G, Anderson, PJ, VICS Group. Outcomes at age 2 years of infants < 28 weeks’ gestational age born in Victoria in 2005. J Pediatr 2010; 156: 49–53.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ishii, N, Kono, Y, Yoneoto, N, et al. Outcomes of infants born at 22 and 23 weeks’ gestation. Pediatrics 2013; 132: 62–71.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Marlow, N, Bennett, C, Draper, ES, et al. Perinatal outcomes for extremely preterm babies in relation to place of birth in England: the EPICure 2 study. Arch Dis Child Fetal Neonatal Ed 2014; 99: F181–8.Google Scholar
Ochiai, M, Kinjo, T, Takahata, Y, et al. Survival and neurodevelopmental outcome of preterm infants born at 22–24 weeks of gestational age. Neonatology 2014; 105: 79–84.Google Scholar
Tyson, JE, Parikh, NA, Langer, J, et al. Intensive care for extreme prematurity: moving beyond gestational age. N Engl J Med 2008; 358(16): 1672–81.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lee, HC, Green, C, Hintz, SR, et al. Prediction of death for extremely preterm infants in a population-based cohort. Pediatrics 2010; 126: e644–50.Google Scholar
Rysavy, MA, Li, L, Bell, EF, et al. Eunice Kennedy Shriver NICHD Neonatal Research Network: between-hospital variation in treatment and outcomes in extremely preterm infants. N Engl J Med 2015; 372: 1801–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hintz, SR, Bann, CM, Ambalavanan, N, et al. Predicting time to discharge for extremely preterm infants. Pediatrics 2010; 125: e146–54.Google Scholar
Ambalavanan, N, Carlo, WA, Tyson, JE, et al. Outcome trajectories in extremely preterm infants. Pediatrics 2012; 130: e115–25.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mangham, LJ, Petrou, S, Doyle, LW, et al. The cost of preterm birth throughout childhood in England and Wales. Pediatrics 2009; 123(2):e312–27.Google Scholar
McCabe, ERB, Carrino, GE, Russell, RB, Howse, JL. Fighting for the next generation: US prematurity in 2030. Pediatrics 2014; 134: 1193–9.Google Scholar
Janvier, A, Lantos, J, Deschenes, M, et al. Caregivers attitudes for very premature infants: what if they knew? Acta Pediatr 2008; 97(3): 276–9.Google Scholar
Aylward, GP, Aylward, BS. The changing yardstick in measurement of cognitive abilities in infancy. J Dev Behav Pediatr 2011; 32: 465–8.Google Scholar
Anderson, PJ, De Luca, CR, Hutchinson, E, et al. Underestimation of developmental delay by the new Bayley-III scales. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med 2010; 164(4): 352–6.Google Scholar
Msall, ME. Measuring outcomes after extreme prematurity with the Bayley-III scales of infant and toddler development: a cautionary tale from Australia. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med 2010; 164: 391–3.Google Scholar
Marlow, N, Wolke, D, Bracewell, M, et al. Neurologic and developmental disability at six years of age after extremely preterm birth. N Engl J Med 2005; 352: 9–19.Google Scholar
Saigal, S, Rosenbaum, P. What matters in the long term: reflections on the context of adult outcomes versus detailed measures in childhood. Semin Fetal Neonatal Med 2007; 12: 417–22.Google Scholar
Saigal, S, Tyson, J. Measurement of quality of life of survivors of neonatal intensive care: critique and implications. Semin Perinatol 2008; 32: 59–66.Google Scholar
Saigal, S. Premie Voices:Young Men and Women Born Very Prematurely Describe Their Lives, Challenges, and Achievements. 1st edn. Victoria, BC: Friesen Press, 2014.Google Scholar
Hack, M, Flannery, DJ, Schluchter, M, et al. Outcomes in young adulthood for very low birth weight infants. N Engl J Med 2002; 346: 149–57.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hack, M, Schluchter, M, Forrest, CB, et al. Self-reported adolescent health status of extremely low birth weight children born 1992–1995. Pediatrics 2012; 130(1):46–53.Google Scholar
Litt, JS, Gerry Taylor, H, Margevicius, S, et al. Academic achievement of adolescents born with extremely low birth weight. Acta Paediatr 2012; 101(12): 1240–5.Google Scholar
Hack, M. Adult outcomes of preterm children. J Dev Behav Pediatr 2009; 30(5): 460–70.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hack, M, Taylor, HG, Drotar, D, et. al. Poor predictive validity of the Bayley scales of infant development for cognitive function of extremely low birth weight children at school age. Pediatrics 2005; 116: 333–41.Google Scholar
Ment, LR, Vohr, B, Allan, W, et. al. Change in cognitive function over time in very low-birth-weight infants. JAMA 2003; 289: 705–11.Google Scholar
Spittle, A, Orton, J, Anderson, PJ, et al. Early developmental intervention programmes provided post hospital discharge to prevent motor and cognitive impairment in preterm infants. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2015; 11: CD005495.Google Scholar
Davis, NM, Ford, GW, Anderson, PJ, Doyle, LW. Developmental coordination disorder at 8 years of age in a regional cohort of extremely-low-birthweight or very preterm infants. Dev Med Child Neurol 2007; 49: 325–30.Google Scholar
Roberts, G, Anderson, PJ, Davis, N, et al. Developmental coordination disorder in geographic cohorts of 8-year-old children born extremely preterm or extremely low birth weight in the 1990s. Dev Med Child Neurol 2011; 53: 55–60.Google Scholar
Bayley, N. Bayley Scales of Infant and Toddler Development, 3rd edn. San Antonio, TX: Harcourt Assessment, 2006.Google Scholar
Vohr, BR, Stephens, BE, Higgins, RD, et al. Are outcomes of extremely preterm infants improving? Impact of Bayley assessment on outcomes. J Pediatr 2012; 161: 222–8.Google Scholar
Duncan, AF, Bann, C, Boatman, C, et al. Do currently recommended Bayley-III cutoffs overestimate motor impairment in infants born < 27 weeks gestation? J Perinatol 2015; 35: 516–21.Google Scholar
Spittle, AJ, Spencer-Smith, MM, Eeles, AL, et al. Does the Bayley-III mkotor scale at 2 years predict motor outcome at 4 years on very preterm children? Dev Med Child Neurol 2013; 55: 448–52.Google Scholar
Spencer-Smith, MM, Spittle, AJ, Lee, KJ, et al. Bayley-III cognitive and language scales in preterm children. Pediatrics 2015; 135: e1258–65.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Johnson, S, Moore, T, Marlow, N. Using the Bayley-III to assess neurodevelopmental delay: which cut-off should be used? Pediatr Res 2014; 75: 670–4.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Palisano, R, Rosenbaum, P, Walter, S, et al. Development and reliability of a system to classify gross motor function in children with cerebral palsy. Dev Med Child Neurol 1997; 39: 214–23.Google Scholar
Victorian Infant Collaborative Study Group. Economic outcome for intensive care of infants of birthweight 500–999 g born in Victoria in the post-surfactant era. J Paediatr Child Health 1997; 33: 202–8.Google Scholar
Hutchinson, EA, De Luca, CR, Doyle, LW, et al. School age outcomes of extremely preterm or extremely low birth weight children. Pediatrics 2013; 131(4): e1053–61.Google Scholar
Burnett, AC, Scratch, SE, Lee, KJ, et al. Executive function in adolescents born < 1000 g or <28 weeks: a prospective cohort study. Pediatrics. 2015; 135(4):e826–34Google Scholar
Burnett, A, Davey, CG, Wood, SJ, et al. Extremely preterm birth and adolescent mental health in a geographical cohort born in the late 1990s. Psychol Med 2014; 44(7): 1533–44.Google Scholar
Roberts, G, Burnett, AC, Lee, KJ, et al. Quality of life at age 18 years after extremely preterm birth in the post-surfactant era. J Pediatr 2013; 163(4): 1008–13.Google Scholar
Moore, T, Hennessy, EM, Myles, J, et al. Neurological and developmental outcome in extremely preterm children born in England in 1995 and 2006: the EPICure studies. BMJ 2012; 345: e7961.Google Scholar
Moore, T, Johnson, S, Haider, S, et al. Interpreting developmental test scores over time: using the scond and third editions of the Bayley scales of infant and toddler development. J Pediatr 2012; 160: 553–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moore, T, Johnson, S, Hennessy, E, Marlow, N. Screening for autism in extremely preterm infants: problems in interpretation. Dev Med Child Neurol 2012; 54(6): 514–20.Google Scholar
Kuban, KC, O’Shea, TM, Allred, EN, et al. Positive screening on the Modified Checklist for Autism in Toddlers (M-CHAT) in extremely low gestational age newborns. J Pediatr 2009; 154: 535–40.Google Scholar
Limperopoulos, C, Bassan, H, Sullivan, NR, et al. Positive screening for autism in ex-preterm infants: prevalence and risk factors. Pediatrics 2008; 121: 758–65.Google Scholar
Serenius, F, Kallen, K, Blennow, M, et al. Neurodevelopmental outcome in extremely preterm infants at 2.5 years after active perinatal care in Sweden. JAMA 2013; 309: 1810–20.Google Scholar
Serenius, F, Blennow, M, Marsal, K, et al. Intensity of perinatal care for extremely preterm infants: outcomes at 2.5 years. Pediatrics 2015; 135: e1163–72.Google Scholar
Hintz, SR, Kendrick, DE, Wilson-Costello, D, et al. Neurodevelopmental outcomes at 18–22 months are not improving for <25 week EGA infants. Pediatrics 2011; 127: 62–70.Google Scholar
Vohr, BR, Wright, LL, Dusick, AM, et al. Center differences and outcomes of extremely low birth weight infants. Pediatrics 2004; 113: 781–9.Google Scholar
Schlapbach, LJ, Adams, M, Prioletti, E, et al. Outcome at two years of age in a Swiss national cohort of extremely preterm infants born between 2000 and 2008. BMC Pediatr 2012; 12: 198.Google Scholar
Schlapbach, LJ, Aebischer, M, Adams, M, et al. Impact of sepsis on neurodevelopmental outcome in a Swiss national cohort of extremely premature infants. Pediatrics 2011; 128: e348–57.Google Scholar
Pape, KE, Blackwell, RJ, Cusick, G, et al. Ultrasound detection of brain damage in preterm infants. Lancet 1979; 1(8129): 1261–4.Google Scholar
Slovis, TL, Kuhn, LR. Real-time sonography of the brain through the anterior fontanelle. AJR 1981; 136: 277–86.Google Scholar
Papile, L-A, Burstein, J, Burstein, R, Koffler, H. Incidence and evolution of subependymal and intraventricular hemorrhage: a study of infants with birth weight less than 1500 gm. J Pediatr 1978; 92: 529–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ment, LR, Bada, HS, Barnes, P, et al. Practice parameter: neuroimaging of the neonate. Report of the Quality Standards Subcommittee of the American Academy of Neurology and the Practice Committee of the Child Neurology Society. Neurology 2002; 58: 1726–38.Google Scholar
Ancel, P-Y, Livinec, F, Larroque, B, et al. Cerebral palsy among very preterm children in relation to gestational age and neonatal ultrasound abnormalities: the EPIPAGE Cohort Study. Pediatrics 2006; 117: 828–35.Google Scholar
de Vries, LS, Van Haastert, IC, Rademaker, KJ, et al. Ultrasound abnormalities preceding cerebral palsy in high-risk preterm infants. J Pediatr 2004; 144: 815–20.Google Scholar
de Vries, LS, van Haastert, IC, Benders, MJNL, Groenendaal, F. Myth: cerebral palsy cannot be predicted by neonatal brain imaging. Semin Fetal Neonatal Med. 2011; 16(5): 279–87.Google Scholar
O’Shea, TM, Allred, EN, Dammann, O, et al. The ELGAN study of the brain and related disorders in extremely low gestational age newborns. Early Hum Dev 2009; 85: 719–25.Google Scholar
Kuban, KCK, Allred, EN, O’Shea, TM, et al. Cranial ultrasound lesion in the NICU predict cerebral palsy at age 2 years in children born at extremely low gestational age. J Child Neurol 2009; 24: 63–72.Google Scholar
Wood, NS, Costeloe, K, Gibson, AT, et al. The EPICure Study: association and antecedents of neurological and developmental disability at 30 months of age following extremely preterm birth. Arch Dis Child Fetal Neonatal Ed 2005; 90: F134–40.Google Scholar
Hack, M, Wilson-Costello, D, Friedman, H, et al. Neurodevelopment and predictors of outcomes of children with birth weights of less than 1000 g, 1992–1995. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med 2000; 154: 725–31.Google Scholar
Broitman, E, Ambalavanan, N, Higgins, R, et al. Clinical data predict neurodevelopmental outcome better than head ultrasound in extremely low birth weight infants. J Pediatr 2007; 151: 500–5.Google Scholar
Laptook, AR, O’Shea, RM, Shankaran, S, et al. Adverse neurodevelopmental outcomes among extremely low birth weight infants with a normal head ultrasound: prevalence and antecedents. Pediatrics 2005; 115: 673–80.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
O’Shea, TM, Allred, EN, Kuban, KCK, et al. Intraventricular hemorrhage and developmental outcomes at 24 months of age in extremely preterm infants. J Child Neurol 2012; 27(1): 22–9.Google Scholar
Beaino, G, Khoshnood, B, Kaminski, M, et al. Predictors of cerebral palsy in very preterm infants: the EPIPAGE prospective population-based cohort study. Dev Med Child Neurol 2010; 52: e119–25.Google Scholar
Marret, S, Marchand-Martin, L, Picaud, J-C, et al. Brain injury in very preterm children and neurosensory and cognitive disabilities during childhood: the EPIPAGE Cohort Study. PLoS One 2013; 8: e62683.Google Scholar
Hintz, SR, Slovis, T, Bulas, D, et al. Interobserver reliability and accuracy of cranial ultrasound scanning in premature infants. J Pediatr 2007; 150: 592–6.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Limperopoulos, C, Bassan, H, Gauvreau, K, et al. Does cerebellar injury in premature infants contribute to the high prevalence of long-term cognitive, learning and behavioral disability in survivors? Pediatrics 2007; 120: 584–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Limperopoulos, C, Chilingaryan, G, Sullivan, N, et al. Injury to the premature cerebellum: outcome is related to remote cortical development. Cereb Cortex 2014; 24(3): 728–36.Google Scholar
Pierrat, V, Duquennoy, C, van Haastert, IC, et al. Ultrasound diagnosis and neurodevelopmental outcome of localized and extensive cystic periventricular leucomalacia. Arch Dis Child Fetal Neonatal Ed 2001; 84: F151–6.Google Scholar
Bassan, H, Limperopoulos, C, Visconti, K, et al. Neurodevelopmental outcome in survivors of periventricular hemorrhagic infarction. Pediatrics 2007; 120: 785–92.Google Scholar
Davis, AS, Hintz, SR, Bann, CM, et al. Characteristics of severe intracranial hemorrhage and other factors in predicting early childhood outcomes of extremely preterm infants. J Perinatol 2014; 34(3): 203–8.Google Scholar
Merhar, SL, Tabangin, ME, Meinzen-Derr, J, Schibler, KR. Fetal and postnatal brain MRI in premature infants with twin-twin transfusion syndrome. J Perinatol 2013; 33: 112–18.Google Scholar
Volpe, JJ, Kinney, HC, Jensen, FE, Rosenberg, PA. The developing oligodendrocyte: key cellular target in brain injury in the premature infant. Int J Dev Neurosci 2011; 29: 423–40.Google Scholar
Dyet, LE, Kennea, N, Counsell, SJ, et al. Natural history of brain lesions in extremely preterm infants studied with serial magnetic resonance imaging from birth and neurodevelopmental assessment. Pediatrics 2005; 118: 536–48.Google Scholar
Inder, TE, Warfield, SK, Wang, H, et al. Abnormal cerebral structure is present at term in premature infants. Pediatrics 2005; 115: 286–94.Google Scholar
Inder, TE, Huppi, PS, Warfield, S, et al. Periventricular white matter injury in the premature infant is followed by reduced cerebral cortical gray matter volume at term. Ann Neurol 1999; 46: 755–60.Google Scholar
Boardman, JP, Counsell, SJ, Rueckert, D, et al. Abnormal deep grey matter development following preterm birth detected using deformation-based morphometry. NeuroImage 2006; 32: 70–8.Google Scholar
Thompson, DK, Warfield, SK, Carlin, JB, et al. Perinatal risk factors altering regional brain structure in the preterm infant. Brain 2007; 130: 667–77.Google Scholar
Peterson, BS, Anderson, AW, Ehrenkranz, R, et al. Regional brain volumes and their later neurodevelopmental correlates in term and preterm infants. Pediatrics 2003; 111: 939–48.Google Scholar
Dean, JM, Bennet, L, Back, SA, et al. What brakes the preterm brain? An arresting story. Pediatric Res 2014; 75: 227–33.Google Scholar
Roelants-van Rijn, AM, Groenendaal, F, Beek, FJA, et al. Parenchymal brain injury in the preterm infant: comparison of cranial ultrasound, MRI and neurodevelopmental outcome. Neuropediatrics 2001; 32: 80–9.Google Scholar
Mirmiran, M, Barnes, PD, Keller, K, et al. Neonatal brain magnetic resonance imaging before discharge is better than serial cranial ultrasound in predicting cerebral palsy in very low birth weight preterm infants. Pediatrics 2004; 114: 992–8.Google Scholar
Sie, LTL, Hart, AAM, van Hof, J, et al. Predictive value of neonatal MRI with respect to late MRI findings and clinical outcome: a study in infants with periventricular densities on neonatal ultrasound. Neuropediatrics 2005; 36: 78–89.Google Scholar
Woodward, LJ, Anderson, PJ, Austin, NC, et al. Neonatal MRI to predict neurodevelopmental outcomes in preterm infants. N Engl J Med 2006; 355: 685–94.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hintz, SR, Barnes, PD, Bulas, D, et al. Neuroimaging and neurodevelopmental outcome in extremely preterm infants. Pediatrics 2015; 135: e32–42.Google Scholar
Skiöld, B, Eriksson, C, Eliasson, A-C, et al. General movements and magnetic resonance imaging in the prediction of neuromotor outcome in children born extremely preterm. Early Hum Dev 2013; 89(7): 467–72.Google Scholar
Jeon, TY, Kim, JH, Yoo, SY, et al. Neurodevelopmental outcomes in preterm infants: comparison of infants with and without diffuse excessive high signal intensity on MR images at near-term-equivalent age. Radiology 2012; 263(2): 518–26.Google Scholar
Skiöld, B, Vollmer, B, Böhm, B, et al. Neonatal magnetic resonance imaging and outcome at age 30 months in extremely preterm infants. J Pediatr 2012; 160(4): 559–66.Google Scholar
Janvier, A, Barrington, K. Trying to predict the future of ex-preterm infants: who benefits from a brain MRI at term? Acta Paediatr 2012; 101(10): 1016–17.Google Scholar
Ho, T, Dukhovny, D, Zupancic, JAF, et al. Choosing wisely in newborn medicine: five opportunities to increase value. Pediatrics 2015; 136: e482–9.Google Scholar
Tam, EW, Rosenbluth, G, Rogers, EE, et al. Cerebellar hemorrhage on magnetic resonance imaging in preterm newborns associated with abnormal neurologic outcome. J Pediatr 2011; 158(2): 245–50.Google Scholar
Steggerda, SJ, de Bruine, FT, van den Berg-Huysmans, AA, et al. Small cerebellar hemorrhage in preterm infants: perinatal and postnatal factors and outcome. Cerebellum 2013; 12(6):794–801.Google Scholar
Sie, LTL, Hart, AAM, van Hof, J, et al. Predictive value of neonatal MRI with respect to late MRI findings and clinical outcome: a study in infants with periventricular densities on neonatal ultrasound. Neuropediatrics 2005; 36(2):78–89.Google Scholar
Spittle, AJ, Boyd, RN, Inder, TE, Doyle, LW. Predicting motor development in very preterm infants at 12 months’ corrected age: the role of qualitative magnetic resonance imaging and general movements assessments. Pediatrics 2009; 123(2): 512–17.Google Scholar
Skiöld, B, Eriksson, C, Eliasson, A-C, et al. General movements and magnetic resonance imaging in the prediction of neuromotor outcome in children born extremely preterm. Early Hum Dev 2013; 89(7): 467–72.Google Scholar
Glass, HC, Bonifacio, SL, Chau, V, et al. Recurrent postnatal infections are associated with progressive white matter injury in premature infants. Pediatrics 2008; 122: 299–305.Google Scholar
Shah, DK, Doyle, LW, Anderson, PJ, et al. Adverse neurodevelopment in preterm infants with postnatal sepsis or necrotizing enterocolitis is mediated by white matter abnormalities on magnetic resonance imaging at term. J Pediatr 2008; 153: 170–5.Google Scholar
Mathur, AM, Neil, JJ, Inder, TE. Understanding brain injury and neurodevelopmental disabilities in the preterm infant: the evolving role of advanced magnetic resonance imaging. Semin Perinatol 2010; 34: 57–66.Google Scholar
Doyle, LW, Clucas, L, Roberts, G, et al. The cost of long-term follow up of high-risk infants for research studies. J Paediatr Child Health 2015; 51: 1012–16.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected] is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×