The rate of preterm birth in the United States is affected by the method of gestational age assignment

被引:22
作者
Duryea, Elaine L. [1 ]
McIntire, Donald D. [1 ]
Leveno, Kenneth J. [1 ]
机构
[1] Univ Texas SW Med Ctr Dallas, Dept Obstet & Gynecol, Dallas, TX 75390 USA
关键词
obstetric estimate; pregnancy dating; preterm birth; CLINICAL ESTIMATE; TRENDS;
D O I
10.1016/j.ajog.2015.04.038
中图分类号
R71 [妇产科学];
学科分类号
100211 ;
摘要
OBJECTIVE: The objective of the study was to examine the rate of preterm birth in the United States using 2 different methods of gestational age assignment and determine which method more closely correlates with the known morbidities associated with preterm birth. STUDY DESIGN: Using National Center for Health Statistics data from 2012 United States birth certificates, we computed the rate of preterm birth defined as a birth at 36 or fewer completed weeks with gestational age assigned using the obstetric estimate as specified in the revised birth certificate. This rate was then compared with the rate when gestational age is calculated using the last menstrual period alone. The rates of neonatal morbidities associated with preterm birth were examined for each method of assigning gestational age. RESULTS: The rate of preterm birth was 9.7% when the obstetric estimate is used to calculate gestational age, which is significantly different from the rate of 11.5% when gestational age is calculated using the last menstrual period alone. In addition, the neonates identified as preterm by obstetric estimate were more likely to qualify as low birthweight (54% vs 42%; P < .001) and suffer morbidities such as need for assisted ventilation and surfactant use than those identified with the last menstrual period alone. That is to say obstetric estimate is more sensitive and specific for preterm birth by all available markers of prematurity. CONCLUSION: The preterm birth rate is 9.7% vs 11.5% and more closely correlates with adverse neonatal outcomes associated with preterm birth when gestational age is assigned using the obstetric estimate. This method of gestational age assignment is currently used by most industrialized nations and should be considered for future reporting of US outcomes.
引用
收藏
页码:231.e1 / 231.e5
页数:5
相关论文
共 15 条
  • [1] Menstrual versus clinical estimate of gestational age dating in the United States: temporal trends and variability in indices of perinatal outcomes
    Ananth, Cande V.
    [J]. PAEDIATRIC AND PERINATAL EPIDEMIOLOGY, 2007, 21 : 22 - 30
  • [2] [Anonymous], 2014, Obstet Gynecol, V124, P863, DOI 10.1097/01.AOG.0000454932.15177.be
  • [3] [Anonymous], 2007, Preterm birth: Causes, Consequences, and Prevention
  • [4] [Anonymous], 2009, OBSTET GYNECOL, DOI DOI 10.1097/AOG.0B013E31819930B0
  • [5] [Anonymous], 2013, NATL VITAL STAT REP
  • [6] National, regional, and worldwide estimates of preterm birth rates in the year 2010 with time trends since 1990 for selected countries: a systematic analysis and implications
    Blencowe, Hannah
    Cousens, Simon
    Oestergaard, Mikkel Z.
    Chou, Doris
    Moller, Ann-Beth
    Narwal, Rajesh
    Adler, Alma
    Garcia, Claudia Vera
    Rohde, Sarah
    Say, Lale
    Lawn, Joy E.
    [J]. LANCET, 2012, 379 (9832) : 2162 - 2172
  • [7] Differences in Birth Weight for Gestational Age Distributions According to the Measures Used to Assign Gestational Age
    Callaghan, William M.
    Dietz, Patricia M.
    [J]. AMERICAN JOURNAL OF EPIDEMIOLOGY, 2010, 171 (07) : 826 - 836
  • [8] Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, BIRTH ED SPEC 2003 P
  • [9] EURO-PERISTAT Project with SCPE EUROCAT EURONEOAT, 2010, EUR PER HLTH REP
  • [10] Comparing the sensitivities and specificities of two diagnostic procedures performed on the same group of patients
    Hawass, NED
    [J]. BRITISH JOURNAL OF RADIOLOGY, 1997, 70 (832) : 360 - 366