BACKGROUND Between-hospital variation in outcomes among extremely preterm infants is largely unexplained and may reflect differences in hospital practices regarding the initiation of active lifesaving treatment as compared with comfort care after birth. METHODS We studied infants born between April 2006 and March 2011 at 24 hospitals included in the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Neonatal Research Network. Data were collected for 4987 infants born before 27 weeks of gestation without congenital anomalies. Active treatment was defined as any potentially lifesaving intervention administered after birth. Survival and neurodevelopmental impairment at 18 to 22 months of corrected age were assessed in 4704 children (94.3%). RESULTS Overall rates of active treatment ranged from 22.1% (interquartile range [IQR], 7.7 to 100) among infants born at 22 weeks of gestation to 99.8% (IQR, 100 to 100) among those born at 26 weeks of gestation. Overall rates of survival and survival without severe impairment ranged from 5.1% (IQR, 0 to 10.6) and 3.4% (IQR, 0 to 6.9), respectively, among children born at 22 weeks of gestation to 81.4% (IQR, 78.2 to 84.0) and 75.6% (IQR, 69.5 to 80.0), respectively, among those born at 26 weeks of gestation. Hospital rates of active treatment accounted for 78% and 75% of the between-hospital variation in survival and survival without severe impairment, respectively, among children born at 22 or 23 weeks of gestation, and accounted for 22% and 16%, respectively, among those born at 24 weeks of gestation, but the rates did not account for any of the variation in outcomes among those born at 25 or 26 weeks of gestation. CONCLUSIONS Differences in hospital practices regarding the initiation of active treatment in infants born at 22, 23, or 24 weeks of gestation explain some of the between-hospital variation in survival and survival without impairment among such patients. (Funded by the National Institutes of Health.)

WHAT'S KNOWN ON THIS SUBJECT: Extremely preterm infants who receive antihypotensive therapy have worse outcomes than untreated infants. The reasons for this are not clear. High-quality randomized trials have not been performed to date because of logistical challenges, thereby necessitating alternative methods of investigation.WHAT THIS STUDY ADDS: Antihypotensive therapy administration was not associated with improved in-hospital outcomes for any of the 15 definitions of low blood pressure investigated. Alternative methods of deciding who to treat are needed to maximize patient benefit and minimize harm. abstract OBJECTIVE: To investigate the relationships among blood pressure (BP) values, antihypotensive therapies, and in-hospital outcomes to identify a BP threshold below which antihypotensive therapies may be beneficial. METHODS: Prospective observational study of infants 230/7 to 26 6/7weeks' gestational age. Hourly BP values and antihypotensive therapy use in the first 24 hours were recorded. Low BP was investigated by using 15 definitions. Outcomes were examined by using regression analysis controlling for gestational age, the number of low BP values, and illness severity. RESULTS:Of 367 infants enrolled, 203 (55%) received at least 1 antihypotensive therapy. Treated infants were more likely to have low BP by any definition (P , .001), but for the 15 definitions of low BP investigated, therapy was not prescribed to 3% to 49% of infants with low BP and, paradoxically, was administered to 28% to 41% of infants without low BP. Treated infants were more likely than untreated infants to develop severe retinopathy of prematurity (15% vs 8%, P = .03) or severe intraventricular hemorrhage (22% vs 11%, P , .01) and less likely to survive (67% vs 78%, P = .02). However, with regression analysis, there were no significant differences between groups in survival or in-hospital morbidity rates.CONCLUSIONS: Factors other than BP contributed to the decision to use antihypotensive therapies. Infant outcomes were not improved with antihypotensive therapy for any of the 15 definitions of low BP investigated. Pediatrics 2013;131:e1865-e1873AUTHORS:

NRN) extremely preterm birth outcome model is widely used for prognostication by practitioners caring for families expecting extremely preterm birth. The model provides information on mean outcomes from 1998 to 2003 and does not account for substantial variation in outcomes among US hospitals. OBJECTIVE To update and validate the NRN extremely preterm birth outcome model for most extremely preterm infants in the United States.

OBJECTIVE: We sought to determine if a center’s approach to care of premature infants at the youngest gestational ages (22–24 weeks’ gestation) is associated with clinical outcomes among infants of older gestational ages (25–27 weeks’ gestation). METHODS: Inborn infants of 401 to 1000 g birth weight and 22 0/7 to 27 6/7 weeks’ gestation at birth from 2002 to 2008 were enrolled into a prospectively collected database at 20 centers participating in the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Neonatal Research Network. Markers of an aggressive approach to care for 22- to 24-week infants included use of antenatal corticosteroids, cesarean delivery, and resuscitation. The primary outcome was death before postnatal day 120 for infants of 25 to 27 weeks’ gestation. Secondary outcomes were the combined outcomes of death or a number of morbidities associated with prematurity. RESULTS: Our study included 3631 infants 22 to 24 weeks’ gestation and 5227 infants 25 to 27 weeks’ gestation. Among the 22- to 24-week infants, use of antenatal corticosteroids ranged from 28% to 100%, cesarean delivery from 13% to 65%, and resuscitation from 30% to 100% by center. Centers with higher rates of antenatal corticosteroid use in 22- to 24-week infants had reduced rates of death, death or retinopathy of prematurity, death or late-onset sepsis, death or necrotizing enterocolitis, and death or neurodevelopmental impairment in 25- to 27-week infants. CONCLUSIONS: This study suggests that physicians’ willingness to provide care to extremely low gestation infants as measured by frequency of use of antenatal corticosteroids is associated with improved outcomes for more-mature infants.

Objective Investigate relationships between early blood pressure (BP) changes, receipt of anti-hypotensive therapy, and 18 – 22 month corrected age (CA) outcomes for extremely preterm infants. Design Prospective observational study of infants 230/7 – 266/7 weeks gestational age (GA). Hourly BP values and anti-hypotensive therapy exposure in the first 24 hours were recorded. Four groups were defined: infants who did or did not receive anti-hypotensive therapy in whom BP did or did not rise at the expected rate (defined as an increase in the mean arterial BP of ≥5 mmHg/day). Random-intercept logistic modeling controlling for center clustering, GA, and illness severity was used to investigate the relationship between BP, anti-hypotensive therapies, and infant outcomes. Setting Sixteen academic centers of the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Neonatal Research Network. Main Outcome Measures Death or neurodevelopmental impairment / developmental delay (NIDD) at 18 – 22 months CA. Results Of 367 infants, 203 (55%) received an anti-hypotensive therapy, 272 (74%) survived to discharge, and 331 (90%) had a known outcome at 18 – 22 months CA. With logistic regression, there was an increased risk of death/NIDD with anti-hypotensive therapy versus no treatment (odds ratio: 1.836, 95% confidence interval: 1.092 – 3.086), but not NIDD alone (odds ratio: 1.53, 95% confidence interval: 0.708 – 3.307). Conclusion Independent of early BP changes, anti-hypotensive therapy exposure was associated with an increased risk of death/NIDD at 18 to 22 months CA when controlling for risk factors known to affect survival and neurodevelopment.