Prediction of Neonatal Metabolic Acidosis in Women with a Singleton Term Pregnancy in Cephalic Presentation: An External Validation Study

Abstract

Objective To externally validate two previously developed prognostic models that predict the risk for developing metabolic acidosis in newborns using both antepartum (model 1) and intrapartum (combined with antepartum, model 2) risk factors: parity, previous cesarean section, maternal diabetes mellitus, gestational age, induced onset of labor, meconium-stained amniotic fluid, and use of ST analysis.

Study Design The two prediction models were applied in women in active labor at more than 36 gestational weeks with singleton fetuses in cephalic presentation and with high-risk pregnancies (n = 5049) who were included in a Swedish randomized trial between December 1, 1998, and June 4, 2000. The prognostic ability of the models was determined using calibration and discrimination measures.

Results Of 5049 infants in the validation population, 54 (1.1%) suffered from metabolic acidosis. After adjustment for incidence differences between the Dutch and Swedish cohorts, the prognostic models showed good calibration and moderate overall discrimination (C statistic 0.63, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.55 to 0.71; and 0.64, 95% CI 0.55 to 0.72), for models 1 and 2, respectively).

Conclusion External validation of the clinical prediction models for metabolic acidosis in Swedish infants showed good calibration and moderate discriminative ability. Updating of the models to enhance their predictive abilities seems indicated.

Keywords

metabolic acidosis - external validation - prognostic model - birth asphyxia - neonate

• References

• 1 Goodwin TM, Belai I, Hernandez P, Durand M, Paul RH. Asphyxial complications in the term newborn with severe umbilical acidemia. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1992; 167: 1506-1512
• 2 Lavrijsen SW, Uiterwaal CS, Stigter RH, de Vries LS, Visser GH, Groenendaal F. Severe umbilical cord acidemia and neurological outcome in preterm and full-term neonates. Biol Neonate 2005; 88: 27-34
• 3 van de Riet JE, Vandenbussche FP, Le Cessie S, Keirse MJ. Newborn assessment and long-term adverse outcome: a systematic review. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1999; 180: 1024-1029
• 4 van den Berg PP, Nelen WL, Jongsma HW , et al. Neonatal complications in newborns with an umbilical artery pH < 7.00. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1996; 175: 1152-1157
• 5 Williams KP, Singh A. The correlation of seizures in newborn infants with significant acidosis at birth with umbilical artery cord gas values. Obstet Gynecol 2002; 100: 557-560
• 6 Westerhuis ME, Schuit E, Kwee A , et al. Prediction of neonatal metabolic acidosis in women with a singleton term pregnancy in cephalic presentation. Am J Perinatol 2011; 29: 167-174
• 7 Westerhuis ME, Visser GH, Moons KG , et al. Cardiotocography plus ST analysis of fetal electrocardiogram compared with cardiotocography only for intrapartum monitoring: a randomized controlled trial. Obstet Gynecol 2010; 115: 1173-1180
• 8 Altman DG, Vergouwe Y, Royston P, Moons KG. Prognosis and prognostic research: validating a prognostic model. BMJ 2009; 338: b605
• 9 Amer-Wåhlin I, Kjellmer I, Maršál K, Olofsson P, Rosén KG. Swedish randomized controlled trial of cardiotocography only versus cardiotocography plus ST analysis of fetal electrocardiogram revisited: analysis of data according to standard versus modified intention-to-treat principle. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 2011; 90: 990-996
• 10 Amer-Wåhlin I, Hellsten C, Norén H , et al. Cardiotocography only versus cardiotocography plus ST analysis of fetal electrocardiogram for intrapartum fetal monitoring: a Swedish randomised controlled trial. Lancet 2001; 358: 534-538
• 11 Siggaard-Andersen O. An acid-base chart for arterial blood with normal and pathophysiological reference areas. Scand J Clin Lab Invest 1971; 27: 239-245
• 12 Janssen KJ, Vergouwe Y, Kalkman CJ, Grobbee DE, Moons KG. A simple method to adjust clinical prediction models to local circumstances. Can J Anaesth 2009; 56: 194-201
• 13 Atkinson AC. A note on the generalized information criterion for choice of a model. Biometrika 1980; 67: 413-418
• 14 Harrell Jr FE, Lee KL, Mark DB. Multivariable prognostic models: issues in developing models, evaluating assumptions and adequacy, and measuring and reducing errors. Stat Med 1996; 15: 361-387
• 15 Miller ME, Hui SL, Tierney WM. Validation techniques for logistic regression models. Stat Med 1991; 10: 1213-1226
• 16 Vergouwe Y, Moons KG, Steyerberg EW. External validity of risk models: use of benchmark values to disentangle a case-mix effect from incorrect coefficients. Am J Epidemiol 2010; 172: 971-980
• 17 Donders AR, van der Heijden GJ, Stijnen T, Moons KG. Review: a gentle introduction to imputation of missing values. J Clin Epidemiol 2006; 59: 1087-1091
• 18 Greenland S, Finkle WD. A critical look at methods for handling missing covariates in epidemiologic regression analyses. Am J Epidemiol 1995; 142: 1255-1264
• 19 van der Heijden GJ, Donders AR, Stijnen T, Moons KG. Imputation of missing values is superior to complete case analysis and the missing-indicator method in multivariable diagnostic research: a clinical example. J Clin Epidemiol 2006; 59: 1102-1109
• 20 Janssen KJ, Vergouwe Y, Donders AR , et al. Dealing with missing predictor values when applying clinical prediction models. Clin Chem 2009; 55: 994-1001
• 21 Stichting Perinatale Registratie Nederland. Perinatale Zorg in Nederland 2008. Utrecht, the Netherlands: Stichting Perinatale Registratie Nederland; 2011
• 22 Wiberg N, Källén K, Olofsson P. Base deficit estimation in umbilical cord blood is influenced by gestational age, choice of fetal fluid compartment, and algorithm for calculation. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2006; 195: 1651-1656
• 23 Reilly BM, Evans AT. Translating clinical research into clinical practice: impact of using prediction rules to make decisions. Ann Intern Med 2006; 144: 201-209