Evaluation of neurodevelopmental outcome in high-risk infants in Australia

Quality of motor performance in preterm and full-term 3-year-old children

BACKGROUND

A combined assessment of motor performance and behaviour (CAMPB) was introduced previously for use in a longitudinal study of children who needed neonatal intensive care (NIC) and were born very preterm (n = 68), moderately preterm (n = 81) and full-term (n = 77) and in a reference group of neonatally healthy full-term children (n = 72). Aim To follow up the quality of motor performance at 3 years of age in the above groups of children.

METHOD

A detailed assessment of motor performance and an assessment of co-ordination were performed according to the CAMPB protocol. The results were compared between the different groups of children, and the relation between the two ways of assessing quality of motor performance was examined.

RESULTS

The detailed assessment showed that the very preterm children had a significantly higher total score of deviations than any of the other gestational age groups of children. Also, some types of deviations were much more frequently observed in the very preterm children than in the other three groups. Some types of deviations were more often seen in children with pronounced incoordination than in children with no incoordination. The results from the two ways of assessing motor performance were strongly correlated.

CONCLUSION

At 3 years of age, NIC children born very preterm have a lower quality of motor performance than NIC children born at a higher gestational age and healthy children born at term. The two ways of assessing quality of motor performance proved useful in identifying children with deviations indicating minor motor impairments.

Antenatal counselling, resuscitation practices and attitudes among Australian neonatologists towards life support in extreme prematurity

A questionnaire survey of Australian neonatologists was conducted to ascertain their antenatal counselling and resuscitation practices, and attitudes towards life support in the extremely preterm infant. This study showed that in antenatal parental counselling, whether a paediatrician was given the opportunity to participate depends on the gestation at the time of the threatened preterm delivery The counselling employed almost invariably covered mortality and morbidity. The obstetrician's opinion was considered to be of utmost importance. Both financial and moral obligations were found to be of little importance in counselling and resuscitation. Only one-third of institutions had guidelines for limiting resuscitation. The onus remained on the neonatologists concerning which infant to resuscitate, and the level of the resuscitation to be conducted. In Australia, resuscitation at birth was restricted to infants of 23 weeks' gestation or above, and neonatologists did not believe the legal system has a role to play in limiting or mandating resuscitation of extremely preterm infants. Neither were they concerned with the threat of litigation when they decide to limit resuscitation. The majority of neonatologists agreed with their institution's approach to life support in extremely preterm infants. One grey area was the question of withholding assisted feeding in an infant for which the decision to withdraw life support has been made. Australia lacked a current consensus policy on selective non-treatment. The establishment of national guidelines would be helpful to aid Australian obstetricians and neonatologists in their clinical practice.