Prediction of ECMO and Mortality in Neonates with Congenital Diaphragmatic Hernia Using the SNAP-II Score.
Link: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31569261
Klin Padiatr. 2019 Sep 30. doi: 10.1055/a-1009-6671. [Epub ahead of print]
Prediction of ECMO and Mortality in Neonates with Congenital Diaphragmatic Hernia Using the SNAP-II Score.
Kipfmueller F1, Schroeder L1, Melaku T1, Geipel A2, Berg C2, Gembruch U2, Heydweiller A3, Bendixen C3, Reutter H1, Müller A1.
Author information
Abstractin English, German
BACKGROUND:
The mortality of neonates with congenital diaphragmatic hernia (CDH) ranges between 20 and 40% even in specialized high-volume centers. The Score for Neonatal Acute Physiology-II (SNAP-II Score) could facilitate the decision about supportive therapies in CDH newborns.
METHODS:
The SNAP-II score consists of the variables arterial blood pressure, pH, PaO2:FiO2, body temperature, diuresis, and seizure activity and was calculated at an age of 12 h.
RESULTS:
101 CDH newborns treated in our institution between 2009 and 2017 were included in the study. A SNAP-II score ≥ 28 was calculated as cutoff for predicting mortality (AUC 0.876; 95% CI: 0.795-0.957). The mortality rate was 52.9% with a SNAP-II score ≥ 28, and 5.9% with a SNAP-II score<28. Sensitivity and specificity for predicting mortality was 81.8 and 79.7%, the negative predicting value (NPV) was 94.0%, the positive predicting value (PPV) 52.9%. The optimal cutoff for predicting ECMO was ≥ 22 (AUC 0.895; 95% CI: 0.836-0.954). Sensitivity and specificity for predicting ECMO therapy was 90.7, and 63.8%, the NPV was 90.2%, and the PPV was 65% respectively. The SNAP-II score was independently associated with mortality [OR 1.126 (95% CI: 1.050-1.207)] and the need for ECMO therapy [OR 1.243 (95% CI: 1.106-1.397)].
CONCLUSION:
The SNAP-II score is strongly associated with mortality and the need for ECMO therapy in CDH newborns and should be implemented in the risk stratification of these infants.
© Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York.
PMID: 31569261 DOI: 10.1055/a-1009-6671