Comparison of the four proposed Apgar scoring systems in the assessment of birth asphyxia and adverse early neurologic outcomes

48Citations
Citations of this article
136Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

Abstract

Objectives: To compare the Conventional, Specified, Expanded and Combined Apgar scoring systems in predicting birth asphyxia and the adverse early neurologic outcomes. Methods: This prospective cohort study was conducted on 464 admitted neonates. In the delivery room, after delivery the umbilical cord was double clamped and a blood samples was obtained from the umbilical artery for blood gas analysis, meanwhile on the 1-, 5- and 10- minutes Conventional, Specified, Expanded, and Combined Apgar scores were recorded. Then the neonates were followed and intracranial ultrasound imaging was performed, and the following information were recorded: the occurrence of birth asphyxia, hypoxic Ischemic Encephalopathy (HIE), intraventricular hemorrhage (IVH), and neonatal seizure. Results: The Combined-Apgar score had the highest sensitivity (97%) and specificity (99%) in predicting birth asphyxia, followed by the Specified-Apgar score that was also highly sensitive (95%) and specific (97%). The Expanded-Apgar score was highly specific (95%) but not sensitive (67%) and the Conventional-Apgar score had the lowest sensitivity (81%) and low specificity (81%) in predicting birth asphyxia. When adjusted for gestational age, only the low 5-minute Combined-Apgar score was independently associated with the occurrence of HIE (B = 1.61, P = 0.02) and IVH (B = 2.8, P = 0.01). Conclusions: The newly proposed Combined-Apgar score is highly sensitive and specific in predicting birth asphyxia and also is a good predictor of the occurrence of HIE and IVH in asphyxiated neonates.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Dalili, H., Nili, F., Sheikh, M., Hardani, A. K., Shariat, M., & Nayeri, F. (2015). Comparison of the four proposed Apgar scoring systems in the assessment of birth asphyxia and adverse early neurologic outcomes. PLoS ONE, 10(3). https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0122116

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free