Background and Objectives: Hammersmith Neonatal Neurologic Examination (HNNE) is used to identify term and preterm infants at risk of neurodevelopmental disability. The test is recommended at corrected term age in preterm; and around 2 weeks postnatal age in term neonates. As the current trend is to discharge based on physiological stability, it may not be feasible to perform HNNE at recommended age. The authors investigated whether predictive ability of the test for neurodevelopmental disability remained unchanged if performed early (before discharge). Methods: The authors enrolled preterm and at-risk term neonates. HNNE PE was performed before discharge in all infants. The test was repeated in preterm infants at 40 weeks postmenstrual age and in term neonates at 2 weeks of age (HNNE RA). Neurodevelopmental disability was assessed at 1 year of age. Results: HNNE PE was done in 125 neonates (103 preterm, 22 term neonates). HNNE RA was done in 58% infants. Neurodevelopmental disability was assessed in 84 (67%) of infants. Neurodevelopmental disability was noted in 14/84 (16.6%) babies. The receiver operating characteristic curve of raw scores showed that area under the curve for HNNE PE (0.71) and HNNE RA (0.66) were similar. The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value, positive likelihood ratio, and negative likelihood ratio for both the tests were similar for a cutoff optimality score of 32.5. HNNE PE could be performed up to 4 weeks earlier than HNNE RA with the same predictive ability for neurodevelopmental disability. Conclusions: HNNE PE was as reliable as HNNE RA in predicting neurodevelopmental disability at 1 year of age. Completion of the test is assured and provides several weeks lead time for early intervention.

No abstract

Background Aggressive nutrition may benefit early growth; nevertheless, effects on neurodevelopmental outcomes are unclear. We planned a descriptive analytical study to compare survival without neurodevelopment disability (NDD) at 1 year in 2 groups during 2 time epochs—before and after implementation of early optimal nutrition strategies. NDD was defined as any one of the following: mental and/or motor development quotient < 85 at 12 months of age, corrected for prematurity; Denver Developmental Screening Test abnormal/suspect in even 1 domain out of the 4 domains; seizures; requirement of hearing aid; or blindness in 1 or both eyes. We also compared mortality, survival without bronchopulmonary dysplasia, necrotizing enterocolitis (NEC), retinopathy of prematurity (ROP), intraventricular hemorrhage, periventricular leukomalacia, sepsis, metabolic bone disease (MBD), and extrauterine growth restriction (EUGR). Methods Preterm neonates born between 27 and 32 weeks’ gestation were included. The prospective study group (AO) was recruited after implementation of early optimal nutrition policy. The comparative retrospective cohort (BO) received nutrition based on clinicians’ decisions. Both groups were followed up using a structured plan till 1 year corrected age. Results 137 neonates were enrolled in AO and 151 in the BO cohort. There was no statistically significant difference in survival without NDD at 1 year—75.5% in AO vs 72.1% in BO, odds ratio 0.84 (95% CI 0.5–1.6). Babies who received early optimal nutrition had less NEC, EUGR, and ROP requiring laser therapy but more MBD. Conclusion There was no difference in survival without NDD in early optimal nutrition cohort compared to the cohort before implementation of the nutrition strategy. Short‐term benefits themselves may justify the need for early optimal nutrition.

No abstract

No abstract