Evaluation of brain injury in high-risk full-term low body weight newborns by modified aEEG scores

doi:10.3877/cma.j.issn.2095-9141.2023.03.007

Abstract

Abstract:

Objective

To explore the evaluation effect of modified amplitude-integrated electroencephalography (aEEG) scores on brain injury of high-risk full-term low body weight newborns.

Methods

The clinical data of 167 high-risk full-term low body weight newborns who were born in Neonatal Department of Xingtai Third Hospital from September 2017 to April 2019 were retrospective analyzed. They were divided into brain injury group and non brain injury group according to the brain injury occurence or not [neonatal behavioral neurological assessment (NBNA) ≤35 scores]. The routine aEEG scoring standard and the modified aEEG scoring standard were used to evaluate the the two groups of newborns' EEG within 12 h after birth, and the results of the routine aEEG scoring and the modified aEEG scoring of the two groups were compared and the diagnostic results of the two scores for the brain injury of high-risk full-term low body weight newborn were compared.

Results

Among 167 high-risk full-term low body weight newborns, there were 83 cases in the non brain injury group and 84 cases in the brain injury group. The incidences of brain injury in spontaneous delivery and cesarean section were higher than that in spontaneous delivery and cesarean section, with a statistically significant difference (P<0.05); The scores of routine aEEG and modified aEEG in brain injury group were lower than those in non brain injury group, with a statistically significant difference (P<0.05); There were significant differences in modified aEEG score and conventional aEEG score on the evaluation of brain injury in high-risk full-term low body weight newborns (P<0.05); the optimum cut-off points of the modified aEEG scores and the routine aEEG scores were 9 and 8. The area under receiver operating characteristic curve of modified aEEG score was larger than that of conventional aEEG score, and the difference was statistically significant (P<0.05).

Conclusion

Both the conventional aEEG scores and the modified aEEG scores can be used to evaluate the brain injury of high-risk full-term low body weight newborns, with the latter showing better results.

Key words: Modified amplitude integrated electroencephalogram, High-risk full-term low body weight newborns, Brain injury

Jinglei Ji, Xiuli Li, Yanan Jia, Huimin Feng, Liyan Liu. Evaluation of brain injury in high-risk full-term low body weight newborns by modified aEEG scores[J]. Chinese Journal of Neurotraumatic Surgery(Electronic Edition), 2023, 09(03): 165-169.

/ / Recommend

Add to citation manager EndNote|Ris|BibTeX

URL: https://zhsjcswkdzzz.cma-cmc.com.cn/EN/10.3877/cma.j.issn.2095-9141.2023.03.007

https://zhsjcswkdzzz.cma-cmc.com.cn/EN/Y2023/V09/I03/165

Figures/Tables 4

References 20

[1]	Shao R, Sun D, Hu Y, et al. White matter injury in the neonatal hypoxic-ischemic brain and potential therapies targeting microglia[J]. J Neurosci Res, 2021, 99(4): 991-1008. DOI: 10.1002/jnr.24761.
[2]	Morton S, Kua J, Mullington CJ. Epidural analgesia, intrapartum hyperthermia, and neonatal brain injury: a systematic review and meta-analysis[J]. Br J Anaesth, 2021, 126(2): 500-515. DOI: 10.1016/j.bja.2020.09.046.
[3]	Nguyen T, Wusthoff CJ. Clinical manifestations of neonatal seizures [J]. Pediatr Int, 2021, 63(6): 631-635. DOI: 10.1111/ped.14654.
[4]	Jinnou H. Regeneration using endogenous neural stem cells following neonatal brain injury[J]. Pediatr Int, 2021, 63(1): 13-21. DOI: 10.1111/ped.14368.
[5]	Vesoulis ZA, Mintzer JP, Chock VY. Neonatal NIRS monitoring: recommendations for data capture and review of analytics[J]. J Perinatol, 2021, 41(4): 675-688. DOI: 10.1038/s41372-021-00946-6.
[6]	Sabir H, Hoehn T. Comparison of two amplitude-integrated electroencephalography (aEEG) monitors in term neonates[J]. J Med Syst, 2017, 41(7): 114. DOI: 10.1007/s10916-017-0758-8.
[7]	徐文慧,刘娜娜,柳涛,等.改良aEEG、NCIS、SNAPPE-Ⅱ评分对高危儿脑损伤早期诊断价值比较[J].南昌大学学报(医学版), 2015, 55(2): 25-31. DOI: 10.13764/j.cnki.ncdm.2015.02.007.
[8]	Chin EYJ, Baral VR, Ereno IL, et al. Evaluation of neurological behaviour in late-preterm newborn infants using the Hammersmith neonatal neurological examination[J]. J Paediatr Child Health, 2019, 55(3): 349-357. DOI: 10.1111/jpc.14205.
[9]	冀京雷,李秀丽,范雪爱.振幅整合脑电图评分联合血清脑红蛋白对晚期早产儿脑损伤情况诊断价值[J].东南国防医药, 2021, 23(2): 141-145. DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.1672-271X.2021.02.007.
[10]	刘丽艳,冀京雷,冯会敏,等.改良aEEG评分联合脑损伤指标预测早产儿神经预后[J].中国妇幼健康研究, 2022, 33(1): 7-12. DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.1673-5293.2022.01.002.
[11]	胡飞红,吴红莲,吴星梅. MIP-1α诊断妊娠期糖尿病新生儿脑损伤的价值研究[J].中国妇幼健康研究, 2019, 30(7): 792-795. DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.1673-5293.2019.07.003.
[12]	Chalak L. The cerebellum's role in neonatal brain injury[J]. Pediatr Res, 2021, 89(5): 1055-1056. DOI: 10.1038/s41390-020-01326-0.
[13]	McGowan MM, O'Kane AC, Vezina G, et al. Serial plasma biomarkers of brain injury in infants with neonatal encephalopathy treated with therapeutic hypothermia[J]. Pediatr Res, 2021, 90(6): 1228-1234. DOI: 10.1038/s41390-021-01405-w.
[14]	袁丹,梁玉兰,陈亮,等.全身运动评估联合脑功能监测在新生儿脑损伤早期诊断中的应用[J].中国儿童保健杂志, 2020, 28(7): 787-790. DOI: 10.11852/zgetbjzz2019-0564.
[15]	Lequin MH, Steggerda SJ, Severino M, et al. Mammillary body injury in neonatal encephalopathy: a multicentre, retrospective study[J]. Pediatr Res, 2022, 92(1): 174-179. DOI: 10.1038/s41390-021-01436-3.
[16]	张磊,张璐,唐建平.振幅整合脑电图在新生儿HIE早期诊治及动态监测的应用价值[J].临床医学工程, 2018, 25(7): 849-850. DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.1674-4659.2018.07.0849.
[17]	李花,钱向明,韦红.振幅整合脑电图对足月窒息新生儿缺氧缺血性脑病程度及预后的预测价值[J].中国医药, 2019, 14(11): 1652-1655. DOI: 10.3760/j.issn.1673-4777.2019.11.014.
[18]	Uchiyama A. A window of hope: cell therapy using neural stem cells for neonatal brain injury[J]. Pediatr Int, 2021, 63(1): 3-4. DOI: 10.1111/ped.14425.
[19]	蒋峰原,刘慧苹,陈利婷,等.血清脑红蛋白评估新生儿低血糖脑损伤的临床价值[J].中国当代儿科杂志, 2019, 21(6): 573-579. DOI: 10.7499/j.issn.1008-8830.2019.06.014.
[20]	李兆杭,梁玉美,孟子达,等.改良aEEG评分联合血清NSE对新生儿缺氧缺血性脑病早期诊断价值的研究[J].右江民族医学院学报, 2022, 44(5): 713-718. DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.1001-5817.2022.05.017.

组别	例数	常规aEEG评分	改良aEEG评分	t值	P值
脑损伤组	84	6.9±1.5	7.5±1.2	2.863	0.005
无脑损伤组	83	12.5±0.3	11.5±0.4	18.221	<0.001
t值		33.358	28.826
P值		<0.001	<0.001

组别	例数	常规aEEG评分	改良aEEG评分	t值	P值
脑损伤组	84	6.9±1.5	7.5±1.2	2.863	0.005
无脑损伤组	83	12.5±0.3	11.5±0.4	18.221	<0.001
t值		33.358	28.826
P值		<0.001	<0.001

诊断方法		金标准
诊断方法		脑损伤（+）	脑损伤（-）
改良aEEG评分	脑损伤（+）	77	3
改良aEEG评分	脑损伤（-）	6	81
常规aEEG评分	脑损伤（+）	68	11
常规aEEG评分	脑损伤（-）	15	73

诊断方法		金标准
诊断方法		脑损伤（+）	脑损伤（-）
改良aEEG评分	脑损伤（+）	77	3
改良aEEG评分	脑损伤（-）	6	81
常规aEEG评分	脑损伤（+）	68	11
常规aEEG评分	脑损伤（-）	15	73

诊断方法	最佳截断点	灵敏度（%）	灵敏度95%CI	特异度（%）	特异度95%CI	准确度（%）	AUC值	95%CI
改良aEEG评分	9分	92.77（77/83）	0.816~0.947	97.59（81/84）	0.836~0.917	94.61（158/167）	0.978	0.943~0.995
常规aEEG评分	8分	81.93（68/83）	0.794~0.863	86.90（73/84）	0.852~0.924	78.44（131/167）	0.900	0.844~0.941

Please choose a citation manager

Content to export