I caught some flack about my stats in my last post. They were missing margin of error etc. The numbers I posted are based on very rough guidelines. None of these numbers are intended to predict an individual outcome, only a likelihood of falling into a given category. My last post was based entirely on something called the "Threshold of viability". The threshold of viability is defined as the gestational age at birth where a given NICU can successfully discharge approximately %50 of their patients.
The biggest draw-back of using the threshold of viability stat is the fact that it ignores quality of life. As long as the child is able to be discharged it is considered a success. There is a significant risks of other complications the earlier the birth. The harder medical science pushes the lower this number gets, at the same time more infants are able to survive with increasingly profound disabilities. The threshold of viability at DHMC in Lebanon is 24 weeks. The NICU in Nashua told us theirs is 28 weeks.
There is another set of numbers based on 1998-2003 data that the NIH collected.
They have a calculator here. Plugging in our current data gives these results.
Based on the following characteristics:
Gestational Age (Best Obstetric Estimate in Completed Weeks): 24 weeks
Birth Weight: 822 grams
Sex: Male
Singleton Birth: Yes
Antenatal Corticosteroids: Yes
Estimated outcomes* for infants in the NRN sample are as follows:
| Outcomes | Outcomes for All Infants | Outcomes for Mechanically Ventilated Infants |
|---|---|---|
| Survival | 77% | 77% |
| Survival Without Profound Neurodevelopmental Impairment | 60% | 61% |
| Survival Without Moderate to Severe Neurodevelopmental Impairment | 42% | 43% |
| Death | 23% | 23% |
| Death or Profound Neurodevelopmental Impairment | 40% | 39% |
| Death or Moderate to Severe Neurodevelopmental Impairment | 58% | 57% |
Please note that these data provide only possible outcomes, and that the estimates apply only at birth. It is important to keep in mind that every infant is different, and that factors beyond these standardized assessments may influence infant outcomes.
2 comments:
Not sure who was giving you flack for the statistics, but to be sure, the first round of stats was sobering enough! Sure, margin of error was missing, but for heaven's sake, with this sort of thing we don't want any kinds of margins of error!
We just want margins of improvement!
No news. No calamities. No problems. No errors. Just continual, albeit slow, progress towards that 77% or higher number. That what we all hope for you, Sharron, and especially "Fish Face," although I hope a better nickname develops before the poor kid reaches preschool! ;-)
Post a Comment