[Skip to Content]
Sign In
Individual Sign In
Create an Account
Institutional Sign In
OpenAthens Shibboleth
[Skip to Content Landing]
Figure 1.
Flow Diagram for Cohort
Flow Diagram for Cohort

Flow diagram of population screened, inclusion in cohort, receipt of postnatal life support, exposure to antenatal steroids, and known survival status. ANS indicates antenatal steroids; SD, standard deviation.

Figure 2.
Proportion of Infants Receiving Postnatal Life Support, by Gestational Age at Birth
Proportion of Infants Receiving Postnatal Life Support, by Gestational Age at Birth

The mean percentage of infants receiving no postnatal life support without antenatal steroids (ANS) exposure, no postnatal life support with ANS exposure, postnatal life support without ANS exposure, and postnatal life support with ANS exposure are shown for each gestational age, 22 to 25 weeks. Numbers above bars indicate sample size at each gestational age.

Table 1.  
Mother and Infant Characteristics
Mother and Infant Characteristics
Table 2.  
Survival Rates, by Gestational Age at Birth
Survival Rates, by Gestational Age at Birth
Table 3.  
Secondary Outcomes, by Gestational Age at Birth
Secondary Outcomes, by Gestational Age at Birth
1.
Mercer  BM.  Periviable birth and the shifting limit of viability.  Clin Perinatol. 2017;44(2):283-286. doi:10.1016/j.clp.2017.02.002PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
2.
Patel  RM, Rysavy  MA, Bell  EF, Tyson  JE.  Survival of infants born at periviable gestational ages.  Clin Perinatol. 2017;44(2):287-303. doi:10.1016/j.clp.2017.01.009PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
3.
Cummings  J; Committee on Fetus and Newborn.  Antenatal counseling regarding resuscitation and intensive care before 25 weeks of gestation.  Pediatrics. 2015;136(3):588-595. doi:10.1542/peds.2015-2336PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
4.
Kaempf  JW, Tomlinson  MW, Campbell  B, Ferguson  L, Stewart  VT.  Counseling pregnant women who may deliver extremely premature infants: medical care guidelines, family choices, and neonatal outcomes.  Pediatrics. 2009;123(6):1509-1515. doi:10.1542/peds.2008-2215PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
5.
Tyson  JE, Parikh  NA, Langer  J, Green  C, Higgins  RD; National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Neonatal Research Network.  Intensive care for extreme prematurity—moving beyond gestational age.  N Engl J Med. 2008;358(16):1672-1681. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa073059PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
6.
Rysavy  MA, Li  L, Bell  EF,  et al; Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Neonatal Research Network.  Between-hospital variation in treatment and outcomes in extremely preterm infants.  N Engl J Med. 2015;372(19):1801-1811. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa1410689PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
7.
Raju  TN, Mercer  BM, Burchfield  DJ, Joseph  GF  Jr.  Periviable birth: executive summary of a joint workshop by the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine, American Academy of Pediatrics, and American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists.  Obstet Gynecol. 2014;123(5):1083-1096. doi:10.1097/AOG.0000000000000243PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
8.
American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists; Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine.  Obstetric care consensus No. 6: periviable birth.  Obstet Gynecol. 2017;130(4):e187-e199. doi:10.1097/AOG.0000000000002352PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
9.
Roberts  D, Dalziel  S.  Antenatal corticosteroids for accelerating fetal lung maturation for women at risk of preterm birth.  Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2006;(3):CD004454.PubMedGoogle Scholar
10.
Roberts  D, Brown  J, Medley  N, Dalziel  SR.  Antenatal corticosteroids for accelerating fetal lung maturation for women at risk of preterm birth.  Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2017;3:CD004454.PubMedGoogle Scholar
11.
Liggins  GC, Howie  RN.  A controlled trial of antepartum glucocorticoid treatment for prevention of the respiratory distress syndrome in premature infants.  Pediatrics. 1972;50(4):515-525.PubMedGoogle Scholar
12.
Travers  CP, Clark  RH, Spitzer  AR, Das  A, Garite  TJ, Carlo  WA.  Exposure to any antenatal corticosteroids and outcomes in preterm infants by gestational age: prospective cohort study.  BMJ. 2017;356:j1039. doi:10.1136/bmj.j1039PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
13.
 Effect of corticosteroids for fetal maturation on perinatal outcomes: NIH consensus development panel on the effect of corticosteroids for fetal maturation on perinatal outcomes.  JAMA. 1995;273(5):413-418. doi:10.1001/jama.1995.03520290065031PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
14.
Wright  LL, Horbar  JD, Gunkel  H,  et al.  Evidence from multicenter networks on the current use and effectiveness of antenatal corticosteroids in low birth weight infants.  Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1995;173(1):263-269. doi:10.1016/0002-9378(95)90211-2PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
15.
Horbar  JD.  Antenatal corticosteroid treatment and neonatal outcomes for infants 501 to 1500 gm in the Vermont-Oxford Trials Network.  Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1995;173(1):275-281. doi:10.1016/0002-9378(95)90213-9PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
16.
Wright  LL, Verter  J, Younes  N,  et al.  Antenatal corticosteroid administration and neonatal outcome in very low birth weight infants: the NICHD Neonatal Research Network.  Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1995;173(1):269-274. doi:10.1016/0002-9378(95)90212-0PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
17.
Carlo  WA, McDonald  SA, Fanaroff  AA,  et al; Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Neonatal Research Network.  Association of antenatal corticosteroids with mortality and neurodevelopmental outcomes among infants born at 22 to 25 weeks’ gestation.  JAMA. 2011;306(21):2348-2358. doi:10.1001/jama.2011.1752PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
18.
Mori  R, Kusuda  S, Fujimura  M; Neonatal Research Network Japan.  Antenatal corticosteroids promote survival of extremely preterm infants born at 22 to 23 weeks of gestation.  J Pediatr. 2011;159(1):110-114 e111. doi:10.1016/j.jpeds.2010.12.039PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
19.
Manktelow  BN, Lal  MK, Field  DJ, Sinha  SK.  Antenatal corticosteroids and neonatal outcomes according to gestational age: a cohort study.  Arch Dis Child Fetal Neonatal Ed. 2010;95(2):F95-F98. doi:10.1136/adc.2009.170340PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
20.
Wong  D, Abdel-Latif  M, Kent  A, Network  N; NICUS Network.  Antenatal steroid exposure and outcomes of very premature infants: a regional cohort study.  Arch Dis Child Fetal Neonatal Ed. 2014;99(1):F12-F20. doi:10.1136/archdischild-2013-304705PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
21.
 Obstetric care consensus No. 4: periviable birth.  Obstet Gynecol. 2016;127(6):e157-e169. doi:10.1097/AOG.0000000000001483PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
22.
Park  CK, Isayama  T, McDonald  SD.  Antenatal corticosteroid therapy before 24 weeks of gestation: a systematic review and meta-analysis.  Obstet Gynecol. 2016;127(4):715-725. doi:10.1097/AOG.0000000000001355PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
23.
Wapner  R, Jobe  AH.  Controversy: antenatal steroids.  Clin Perinatol. 2011;38(3):529-545. doi:10.1016/j.clp.2011.06.013PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
24.
Vermont Oxford Network.  Vermont Oxford Network Database Manual of Operations. Burlington: Vermont Oxford Network; 2016.
25.
von Elm  E, Altman  DG, Egger  M, Pocock  SJ, Gøtzsche  PC, Vandenbroucke  JP; STROBE Initiative.  The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies.  Epidemiology. 2007;18(6):800-804. doi:10.1097/EDE.0b013e3181577654PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
26.
Vandenbroucke  JP, von Elm  E, Altman  DG,  et al; STROBE Initiative.  Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE): explanation and elaboration.  Epidemiology. 2007;18(6):805-835. doi:10.1097/EDE.0b013e3181577511PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
27.
National Center for Health Statistics.  Natality public-use tape and CD-ROM. https://wonder.cdc.gov/wonder/help/natality/NatalityPublicUseUserGuide2012.pdf. Accessed September 17, 2018.
28.
Apgar  V.  A proposal for a new method of evaluation of the newborn infant.  Curr Res Anesth Analg. 1953;32(4):260-267.PubMedGoogle Scholar
29.
Apgar  V, Holaday  DA, James  LS, Weisbrot  IM, Berrien  C.  Evaluation of the newborn infant; second report.  J Am Med Assoc. 1958;168(15):1985-1988. doi:10.1001/jama.1958.03000150027007PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
30.
American Academy of Pediatrics, Committee on Fetus and Newborn; American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and Committee on Obstetric Practice.  The Apgar score.  Pediatrics. 2006;117(4):1444-1447. doi:10.1542/peds.2006-0325PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
31.
Iliodromiti  S, Mackay  DF, Smith  GC, Pell  JP, Nelson  SM.  Apgar score and the risk of cause-specific infant mortality: a population-based cohort study.  Lancet. 2014;384(9956):1749-1755. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(14)61135-1PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
32.
Jobe  AH, Bancalari  E.  Bronchopulmonary dysplasia.  Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2001;163(7):1723-1729. doi:10.1164/ajrccm.163.7.2011060PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
33.
Walsh  MC, Wilson-Costello  D, Zadell  A, Newman  N, Fanaroff  A.  Safety, reliability, and validity of a physiologic definition of bronchopulmonary dysplasia.  J Perinatol. 2003;23(6):451-456. doi:10.1038/sj.jp.7210963PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
34.
Walsh  MC, Yao  Q, Gettner  P,  et al; National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Neonatal Research Network.  Impact of a physiologic definition on bronchopulmonary dysplasia rates.  Pediatrics. 2004;114(5):1305-1311. doi:10.1542/peds.2004-0204PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
35.
Papile  LA, Burstein  J, Burstein  R, Koffler  H.  Incidence and evolution of subependymal and intraventricular hemorrhage: a study of infants with birth weights less than 1,500 gm.  J Pediatr. 1978;92(4):529-534. doi:10.1016/S0022-3476(78)80282-0PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
36.
International Committee for the Classification of Retinopathy of Prematurity.  The International Classification of Retinopathy of Prematurity revisited.  Arch Ophthalmol. 2005;123(7):991-999. doi:10.1001/archopht.123.7.991PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
37.
Spiegelman  D, Hertzmark  E.  Easy SAS calculations for risk or prevalence ratios and differences.  Am J Epidemiol. 2005;162(3):199-200. doi:10.1093/aje/kwi188PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
38.
Wickham  H.  Ggplot2: Elegant Graphics for Data Analysis. New York, NY: Springer; 2009. doi:10.1007/978-0-387-98141-3
39.
R Core Team.  R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing; 2016.
40.
Carey  VJ. Ported to R by Lumley T and Ripley B. gee: Generalized Estimation Equation Solver. R package version 4.13-19 ed; 2015.
41.
VanderWeele  TJ, Ding  P.  Sensitivity analysis in observational research: introducing the E-value.  Ann Intern Med. 2017;167(4):268-274. doi:10.7326/M16-2607PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
42.
Rogowski  JA, Horbar  JD, Staiger  DO, Kenny  M, Carpenter  J, Geppert  J.  Indirect vs direct hospital quality indicators for very low-birth-weight infants.  JAMA. 2004;291(2):202-209. doi:10.1001/jama.291.2.202PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
43.
Phibbs  CS, Baker  LC, Caughey  AB, Danielsen  B, Schmitt  SK, Phibbs  RH.  Level and volume of neonatal intensive care and mortality in very-low-birth-weight infants.  N Engl J Med. 2007;356(21):2165-2175. doi:10.1056/NEJMsa065029PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
44.
Chawla  S, Natarajan  G, Shankaran  S,  et al; National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Neonatal Research Network.  Association of neurodevelopmental outcomes and neonatal morbidities of extremely premature infants with differential exposure to antenatal steroids.  JAMA Pediatr. 2016;170(12):1164-1172. doi:10.1001/jamapediatrics.2016.1936PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
45.
Norberg  H, Kowalski  J, Maršál  K, Norman  M.  Timing of antenatal corticosteroid administration and survival in extremely preterm infants: a national population-based cohort study.  BJOG. 2017;124(10):1567-1574. doi:10.1111/1471-0528.14545PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
46.
Melamed  N, Shah  J, Soraisham  A,  et al.  Association between antenatal corticosteroid administration-to-birth interval and outcomes of preterm neonates.  Obstet Gynecol. 2015;125(6):1377-1384. doi:10.1097/AOG.0000000000000840PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
47.
Norman  M, Piedvache  A, Børch  K,  et al; Effective Perinatal Intensive Care in Europe Research Group.  Association of short antenatal corticosteroid administration-to-birth intervals with survival and morbidity among very preterm infants: results from the EPICE cohort.  JAMA Pediatr. 2017;171(7):678-686. doi:10.1001/jamapediatrics.2017.0602PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
48.
Schmidt  B, Asztalos  EV, Roberts  RS, Robertson  CM, Sauve  RS, Whitfield  MF; Trial of Indomethacin Prophylaxis in Preterms (TIPP) Investigators.  Impact of bronchopulmonary dysplasia, brain injury, and severe retinopathy on the outcome of extremely low-birth-weight infants at 18 months: results from the trial of indomethacin prophylaxis in preterms.  JAMA. 2003;289(9):1124-1129. doi:10.1001/jama.289.9.1124PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
49.
Bassler  D, Stoll  BJ, Schmidt  B,  et al; Trial of Indomethacin Prophylaxis in Preterms Investigators.  Using a count of neonatal morbidities to predict poor outcome in extremely low birth weight infants: added role of neonatal infection.  Pediatrics. 2009;123(1):313-318. doi:10.1542/peds.2008-0377PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
50.
Boss  RD, Hutton  N, Sulpar  LJ, West  AM, Donohue  PK.  Values parents apply to decision-making regarding delivery room resuscitation for high-risk newborns.  Pediatrics. 2008;122(3):583-589. doi:10.1542/peds.2007-1972PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
51.
Saigal  S, Stoskopf  BL, Feeny  D,  et al.  Differences in preferences for neonatal outcomes among health care professionals, parents, and adolescents.  JAMA. 1999;281(21):1991-1997. doi:10.1001/jama.281.21.1991PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
52.
Younge  N, Goldstein  RF, Bann  CM,  et al; Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Neonatal Research Network.  Survival and neurodevelopmental outcomes among periviable infants.  N Engl J Med. 2017;376(7):617-628. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa1605566PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
53.
Soll  RF, Edwards  EM, Badger  GJ,  et al.  Obstetric and neonatal care practices for infants 501 to 1500 g from 2000 to 2009.  Pediatrics. 2013;132(2):222-228. doi:10.1542/peds.2013-0501PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
54.
Horbar  JD, Edwards  EM, Greenberg  LT,  et al.  Variation in performance of neonatal intensive care units in the United States.  JAMA Pediatr. 2017;171(3):e164396. doi:10.1001/jamapediatrics.2016.4396PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
55.
Atwell  K, Callander  E, Lindsay  D, Marshall  PB, Morris  SA.  Selection bias and outcomes for preterm neonates.  Pediatrics. 2018; e20180470.PubMedGoogle Scholar
56.
Litmanovitz  I, Reichman  B, Arnon  S,  et al.  Perinatal factors associated with active intensive treatment at the border of viability: a population-based study.  J Perinatol. 2015;35(9):705-711. doi:10.1038/jp.2015.48PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
57.
Lucey  JF, Rowan  CA, Shiono  P,  et al.  Fetal infants: the fate of 4172 infants with birth weights of 401 to 500 grams—the Vermont Oxford Network experience (1996-2000).  Pediatrics. 2004;113(6):1559-1566. doi:10.1542/peds.113.6.1559PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
58.
Wyckoff  MH.  Initial resuscitation and stabilization of the periviable neonate: the Golden-Hour approach.  Semin Perinatol. 2014;38(1):12-16. doi:10.1053/j.semperi.2013.07.003PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
59.
Wyckoff  MH, Salhab  WA, Heyne  RJ,  et al.  Outcome of extremely low birth weight infants who received delivery room cardiopulmonary resuscitation.  J Pediatr. 2012;160(2):239-244 e232. doi:10.1016/j.jpeds.2011.07.041PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
60.
Shah  PS.  Extensive cardiopulmonary resuscitation for VLBW and ELBW infants: a systematic review and meta-analyses.  J Perinatol. 2009;29(10):655-661. doi:10.1038/jp.2009.71PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
61.
Lantos  JD.  We know less than we think we know about perinatal outcomes.  Pediatrics. 2018; e20181223.PubMedGoogle Scholar
62.
American Academy of Pediatrics Committee on Fetus And Newborn.  Levels of neonatal care.  Pediatrics. 2012;130(3):587-597. doi:10.1542/peds.2012-1999PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
63.
American Academy of Pediatrics, American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists.  Guidelines for Perinatal Care. 8th ed. Elk Grove Village, IL: American Academy of Pediatrics; 2017.
64.
Jensen  EA, Lorch  SA.  Effects of a birth hospital’s neonatal intensive care unit level and annual volume of very low-birth-weight infant deliveries on morbidity and mortality.  JAMA Pediatr. 2015;169(8):e151906. doi:10.1001/jamapediatrics.2015.1906PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
65.
Wilkinson  D, Petrou  S, Savulescu  J.  Rationing potentially inappropriate treatment in newborn intensive care in developed countries.  Semin Fetal Neonatal Med. 2017;23(1):52-58. doi:10.1016/j.siny.2017.10.004PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
66.
Moore  GP, Lemyre  B, Daboval  T,  et al.  Field testing of decision coaching with a decision aid for parents facing extreme prematurity.  J Perinatol. 2017;37(6):728-734. doi:10.1038/jp.2017.29PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
Limit 200 characters
Limit 25 characters
Conflicts of Interest Disclosure

Identify all potential conflicts of interest that might be relevant to your comment.

Conflicts of interest comprise financial interests, activities, and relationships within the past 3 years including but not limited to employment, affiliation, grants or funding, consultancies, honoraria or payment, speaker's bureaus, stock ownership or options, expert testimony, royalties, donation of medical equipment, or patents planned, pending, or issued.

Err on the side of full disclosure.

If you have no conflicts of interest, check "No potential conflicts of interest" in the box below. The information will be posted with your response.

Not all submitted comments are published. Please see our commenting policy for details.

Limit 140 characters
Limit 3600 characters or approximately 600 words
    2 Comments for this article
    EXPAND ALL
    Immune Tolerance Restoration
    Paul Nelson, M.D., M.S. | Family Health Care, P.C., retired
    Ray Owen, a geneticist at Caltech, first described immune tolerance around 1935. A small group of immunologists in the UK originated the concept of induced immune tolerance around 1950: Peter Medawar, Rupert Billingham and Frank Burnet. Their studies eventually led to transplant care-processes. Immune tolerance as a dominant feature of maternal gestation likely fits the aphorism: the elephant in the closet. The perinatal steroids may be viewed as a means to ameliorate the infant's worsening state of immune tolerance as the infant responds to disturbances occurring within their mother's gestational, immune tolerance.

    In
    this regard, I am aware of a June 19, 2018 JAMA publication titled: "Association of Stress-Related Disorders with subsequent Autoimmune Disease." AND, I am also aware that our nation's maternal mortality incidence has worsened annually for 25+ years. Maternal mortality incidence is even more prominent for African-American women, but not seen in women who have recently immigrated from Africa.

    Maternal mortality, mass-shootings, opioid overdose mortality, suicide/homicide, homelessness and mid-life obesity/disability have all worsened in the last 5-10 years simultaneously. The steady loss of Social Capital within every community from uniquely local, contributing processes is the likely cause. Correcting this represents the root cause of root causes as a basis for resolving the aforementioned concurrent epidemics. I cite the BMJ-group study in 2015 titled: "Trust and health: testing the reverse causality hypothesis." See URL below and Think about it!

    see http://doi:10-1136/jech-2015-205822
    CONFLICT OF INTEREST: None Reported
    READ MORE
    At the limit of viability
    Frederick Rivara, MD, MPH | University of Washington
    There is tremendous local variation in practices around resuscitation and care of extremely premature infants at the limit of viability. This study shows that those decisions should be made before birth, so that infants which are resuscitated can get the benefit of antenatal steroids. Pediatricians and obstetricians need to jointly form management protocols for these infants.
    CONFLICT OF INTEREST: Editor in Chief, JAMA Network Open
    Original Investigation
    Pediatrics
    October 12, 2018

    Association of Antenatal Steroid Exposure With Survival Among Infants Receiving Postnatal Life Support at 22 to 25 Weeks’ Gestation

    Author Affiliations
    • 1Vermont Oxford Network, Burlington, Vermont
    • 2Department of Pediatrics, Robert Larner College of Medicine, University of Vermont, Burlington
    • 3Department of Mathematics and Statistics, College of Engineering and Mathematical Sciences, University of Vermont, Burlington
    • 4Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology, and Reproductive Services, Robert Larner College of Medicine, University of Vermont, Burlington
    JAMA Netw Open. 2018;1(6):e183235. doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2018.3235
    Key Points español 中文 (chinese)

    Question  For infants born at the edge of viability who received postnatal life support, was the administration of antenatal steroids associated with higher rates of survival?

    Finding  In a cohort study of 33 472 infants born at 22 to 25 weeks’ gestation between 2012 and 2016, the concordant receipt of antenatal steroids and postnatal life support was significantly associated with higher rates of survival compared with postnatal life support alone.

    Meaning  There is an opportunity for reevaluation of national guidelines, allowing for shared decision making with concordant obstetrical and neonatal treatment plans.

    Abstract

    Importance  Although evidence of antenatal steroids (ANS) efficacy at 22 to 25 weeks’ gestation is limited, increasingly these infants are treated with postnatal life support.

    Objectives  To estimate the proportion of infants receiving postnatal life support at 22 to 25 weeks’ gestation who had exposure to ANS, and to examine if the provision of ANS was associated with a higher rate of survival to hospital discharge and survival without major morbidities.

    Design, Setting, and Participants  This multicenter observational cohort study consisted of 33 472 eligible infants liveborn at 431 US Vermont Oxford Network member hospitals between January 1, 2012, and December 31, 2016. We excluded infants with recognized syndromes or major congenital anomalies. Of the eligible infants, 29 932 received postnatal life support and were included in the analyses. Data analysis was conducted from July 2017 to July 2018.

    Exposure  Antenatal steroids administered to the mother at any time prior to delivery.

    Main Outcomes and Measures  Survival to hospital discharge, major morbidities among survivors, and the composite of survival to discharge without major morbidities.

    Results  Among 29 932 infants who received postnatal life support, 51.9% were male, with a mean (SD) gestational age of 24.12 (0.86) weeks and mean (SD) birth weight of 668 (140) g; 26 090 (87.2%) had ANS exposure and 3842 (12.8%) had no ANS exposure. Survival to hospital discharge was higher for infants with ANS exposure (18 717 of 25 892 [72.3%]) compared with infants without ANS exposure (1981 of 3820 [51.9%]); the adjusted risk ratio for 22 weeks was 2.11 (95% CI, 1.68-2.65), for 23 weeks was 1.54 (95% CI, 1.40-1.70), for 24 weeks was 1.18 (95% CI, 1.12-1.25), and for 25 weeks was 1.11 (95% CI, 1.07-1.14). Survival to hospital discharge without major morbidities was higher for infants with ANS exposure (3777 of 25 833 [14.6%]) compared with infants without ANS exposure (347 of 3806 [9.1%]); the adjusted risk ratio for 22 through 25 weeks was 1.67 (95% CI, 1.49-1.87).

    Conclusions and Relevance  Concordant receipt of ANS and postnatal life support was associated with significantly higher survival and survival without major morbidities at 22 through 25 weeks’ gestation compared with life support alone. Although statistically higher with ANS, survival without major morbidities remains low at 22 and 23 weeks. There is an opportunity to reevaluate national obstetric guidelines, allowing for shared decision making at the edge of viability with concordant obstetrical and neonatal treatment plans.

    Introduction

    Decisions surrounding the perinatal goals of care for infants born extremely preterm (<28 weeks) are highly controversial. With advancing neonatal intensive care technology and capabilities, an increasing number of infants born at 22 to 25 weeks’ gestation receive postnatal life support. This increase reflects a shifting limit of viability with a focus on shared decision making with families.1-4 We currently do not have consensus in the United States on viability, and importantly additional factors other than gestational age are used for individual counseling.5 There is significant hospital-level variation in the provision of postnatal life support at 22 to 24 weeks’ gestation.6 With careful consideration of the risk of death and morbidities including severe neurodevelopmental impairment, some institutional guidelines allow informed parents to choose palliative comfort care for their extremely preterm infants up through 25 6/7 weeks’ gestation.4

    In an effort to provide health care professionals with a unified framework both for medical decision making and counseling families, the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine (SMFM), the American Academy of Pediatrics, and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) convened a joint workshop in 2014 to review the best available evidence for obstetrical and neonatal interventions in the periviable period.7 The general guidance was to consider the use of antenatal steroids (ANS) starting at 22 0/7 weeks if delivery at or later than 23 weeks was anticipated, and not to recommend postnatal life support until 23 0/7 weeks unless a fetus was considered potentially viable based on individual circumstances.

    Incorporating new data on neonatal survival and morbidities, ACOG and SMFM released updated guidance with an important shift in the concordance of care.8 They recommended deferring ANS until 23 0/7 weeks’ gestation, while allowing for neonatal assessment for resuscitation starting at 22 0/7 weeks’ gestation, based on a family’s decision. Although these guidelines try to incorporate families, they recommend discordant care at the edge of viability. Families may be offered and choose postnatal life support at 22 weeks’ gestation, but the obstetric community does not currently recommend giving ANS in preparation of preterm birth and resuscitation at this gestation.

    The most recent Cochrane systematic reviews assessing the efficacy of ANS in extreme prematurity,9,10 found limited relevant data to address this question. The landmark study by Liggins and Howie11 published in 1972 is the only randomized clinical trial with fetuses less than 26 weeks’ gestation at the first dose of ANS (n = 27). We currently do not have trial-level data to adequately test the benefit of ANS at gestations less than 26 weeks.10

    The current ACOG and SMFM guidelines to consider administration of ANS at 23 weeks but not at 22 weeks are not based on evidence from randomized clinical trials, but rather consensus and observational studies with limited statistical power.7,12-22 Medical professionals and families struggle with the quandary of limited relevant data on survival and morbidities,23 and the recommended discordant care at 22 weeks.

    Vermont Oxford Network (VON) is uniquely suited to address this question in an extensive cohort largely representative of national practice with outcomes reflecting current pragmatic care. Our objective was to estimate the proportion of infants receiving postnatal life support at 22 to 25 weeks’ gestation who had exposure to ANS, and to examine if the provision of ANS was associated with a higher rate of survival to hospital discharge and survival without major morbidities.

    Methods

    Vermont Oxford Network is a voluntary worldwide collaborative of hospitals working to improve the quality and safety of medical care for newborn infants and their families through a coordinated program of research, education, and quality improvement projects. We studied 33 472 infants born between January 1, 2012, and December 31, 2016, at 431 US VON member hospitals with level III and IV neonatal intensive care units (NICUs) that perform surgery on neonates (eTable 2 in the Supplement). This analysis includes standardized data collected for liveborn infants born at 22 0/7 weeks’ to 25 6/7 weeks’ gestation, including those who died in the delivery room, and without a minimum birth weight.

    We excluded 1329 infants with recognized syndromes or major congenital malformations, 121 infants with missing data, and 55 infants with implausible birth weights, defined as greater than 4 SD above the mean by week and sex.

    Data Collection

    Local staff collected infant data using uniform definitions24 until death, discharge home, or transfer to other hospitals. Race and ethnicity were abstracted from interviews with the mother, or review of the birth certificate or medical record, in that order of preference. All data underwent automated checks for quality and completeness at the time of submission. The University of Vermont Committee on Human Research determined that the use of the VON Research Repository for this analysis was not human subjects research, and waiver of informed consent was granted. Our reporting of this study followed the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) reporting guideline.25,26

    Definitions

    Gestational age at birth was determined by the best estimate using the following hierarchy: obstetrical measures based on last menstrual period, obstetrical parameters, and prenatal ultrasonography followed by neonatologist’s estimate based on physical criteria and examination.24 Small for gestational age status was defined within categories of sex, race, ethnicity, and multiple birth as birth weight below the 10th percentile on the basis of smoothed curves constructed using the US Natality Data set.27 Apgar scores were assigned by the clinical team as a standard assessment for infants after birth. An Apgar score of 3 or less was categorized as low, describing an infant in poor condition.28-31

    Infants were considered to have exposure to ANS if betamethasone, dexamethasone, or hydrocortisone was administered intramuscularly or intravenously to the mother during pregnancy at any time prior to delivery.24

    Infants were considered to have received postnatal life support if they received any of the following interventions: respiratory support (including face mask ventilation, nasal continuous positive airway pressure, endotracheal intubation, surfactant therapy, or mechanical ventilation), chest compressions, or epinephrine.

    Outcomes

    The primary outcome was survival to hospital discharge. Infants transferred between hospitals were tracked for survival status until discharge.

    Secondary outcomes included major morbidities among survivors: chronic lung disease (CLD); severe intraventricular hemorrhage; cystic periventricular leukomalacia; necrotizing enterocolitis; culture-confirmed infection; severe retinopathy of prematurity; and the composite outcome of survival to discharge without major morbidities. Chronic lung disease was defined as oxygen use at 36 weeks’ postmenstrual age (PMA) or at discharge for infants 34 to 35 weeks’ PMA.32 Oxygen use was determined by the infant’s clinical team, and does not necessarily imply that a physiological test for oxygen requirement was completed at 36 weeks’ PMA.33,34 Severe intraventricular hemorrhage was defined as grades 3 and 4.35 Severe retinopathy of prematurity was defined as stages 3 to 5.36 Culture-confirmed infection was defined as bacterial or fungal sepsis and/or meningitis at any time during the NICU admission based on positive blood or cerebrospinal fluid cultures.24 Necrotizing enterocolitis was diagnosed by the clinical team at surgery, postmortem examination, or clinically and radiographically using standard criteria from the VON Manual of Operations definitions.24

    Statistical Analysis

    We calculated overall rates of postnatal life support, with and without exposure to ANS, by gestational age at birth. We calculated risk ratios (RRs) for survival and each secondary outcome, to compare infants with and without exposure to ANS among those who received postnatal life support. To estimate adjusted RRs (aRRs) for survival and survival without major morbidities, we used log binomial models with generalized estimating equations, adjusting for prenatal care, maternal hypertension, chorioamnionitis, maternal race and ethnicity, multiple births, sex, small for gestational age status, mode of delivery, and hospital-level clustering.37 Prespecified subgroups included gestational age groups by week. The RRs for all covariates included in the models are provided in eTable 1 in the Supplement. The R software package, version 3.3.2 (The R Foundation) was used for all analyses.38-40

    Sensitivity Analyses

    We completed a sensitivity analysis based on the E value41 to assess the minimum strength of association, on the RR scale, that an unmeasured confounder would need to have with both the treatment and outcome to explain away the association of ANS and survival, and ANS and survival without major morbidities in our model. In addition, we considered the possibility that annual hospital volume of very low birth weight deliveries and NICU level may explain some of the association between ANS and survival; this possibility has been proposed previously.42,43

    Results
    Mother and Infant Characteristics

    A total of 33 472 infants were eligible for inclusion (infants per hospital: median, 66; range, 1-366). Of the 3540 infants who did not receive postnatal life support, 590 had ANS exposure. Lack of postnatal life support resulted in death in all of these 3540 infants. Of the remaining 29 932 infants, 26 090 (87.2%) received postnatal life support with ANS exposure and 3842 (12.8%) received postnatal life support without ANS exposure (Figure 1). The infants who received postnatal life support were 51.9% male, with mean (SD) gestational age of 24.12 (0.86) weeks and mean birth weight of 668 (140) g.

    Mothers treated with ANS were more likely to identify with the white racial group, to have received prenatal care, and to have hypertension at all weeks of gestation. Mothers identifying as non-Hispanic and diagnosed with chorioamnionitis were more likely to receive ANS at 23, 24, and 25 weeks. Infants with ANS exposure were more likely to have had cesarean delivery and to be small for gestational age at birth, and less likely to be singleton births or have a 1-minute Apgar score of 3 or less (Table 1).

    The proportion of eligible infants who received postnatal life support varied by gestational age week at birth: 30.8% at 22 weeks, 87.1% at 23 weeks, 98.4% at 24 weeks, and 99.6% at 25 weeks (Figure 2). Of the infants receiving postnatal life support, the proportion exposed to ANS increased with advancing gestational age: 52.4% at 22 weeks, 82.7% at 23 weeks, 89.3% at 24 weeks, and 90.8% at 25 weeks.

    Primary Outcome

    Overall, 1981 of 3820 infants (51.9%) who received postnatal life support without ANS exposure survived to hospital discharge, compared with 18 717 of 25 892 infants (72.3%) who received postnatal life support with ANS exposure (aRR, 1.37; 95% CI, 1.32-1.42). At each week of gestation, infants who received both ANS and postnatal life support were more likely to survive than infants who received postnatal life support alone: 38.5% vs 17.7% at 22 weeks (aRR, 2.11; 95% CI, 1.68-2.65), 55.4% vs 35.6% at 23 weeks (aRR, 1.54; 95% CI, 1.40-1.70), 71.3% vs 59.6% at 24 weeks (aRR, 1.18; 95% CI, 1.12-1.25), and 83.0% vs 75.7% at 25 weeks (aRR, 1.11; 95% CI, 1.07-1.14) (Table 2).

    Secondary Outcomes

    For infants at 22 to 25 weeks’ gestation receiving postnatal life support, exposure to ANS was associated with improved survival without major morbidities (3777 of 25 833 [14.6%] with ANS exposure vs 347 of 3806 [9.1%] without ANS exposure; aRR, 1.67; 95% CI, 1.49-1.87). This finding was consistent at each week of gestation. Although the largest associated benefit for ANS exposure was at the lowest gestational age, the rates of survival without major morbidities remained low: 4.4% vs 1.0% at 22 weeks, 5.9% vs 2.8% at 23 weeks, 11.4% vs 9.5% at 24 weeks, and 22.2% vs 18.8% at 25 weeks (Table 3). The most common major morbidity at each gestational age, and overall, was CLD, which affected approximately 65% of surviving infants, and was unchanged with the receipt of ANS. Among survivors, receipt of ANS was associated with an improved survival without severe intraventricular hemorrhage (RR, 1.16; 95% CI, 1.13-1.19) and survival without periventricular leukomalacia (RR, 1.03; 95% CI, 1.02-1.05). All secondary outcomes by gestational age at birth are shown in Table 3.

    Sensitivity Analyses

    The E value for our analysis of survival overall was 2.09 (lower confidence limit, 1.97), and for survival without major morbidities was 2.73 (lower confidence limit, 2.35). The observed aRR of 1.37 for survival and 1.67 for survival without major morbidities for infants born at 22 through 25 weeks’ gestation exposed to ANS could be explained away by an unmeasured confounder that was associated with both the treatment and the outcomes each by an RR of 2.09 for survival and an RR of 2.73 for survival without major morbidities, above and beyond the measured confounders in our analysis, but weaker confounding could not do so. Furthermore, there was no significant relationship between annual hospital volume of very low-birth-weight deliveries or NICU level and survival in our model.

    Discussion

    In this large US-based prospective cohort study involving infants born at 22 to 25 weeks’ gestation, the combination of postnatal life support with ANS exposure was associated with a significantly higher incidence of survival and survival without major morbidities, overall and at each gestational age 22 through 25 weeks, than postnatal life support alone. Overall, 69.7% of the infants at 22 to 25 weeks’ gestation receiving postnatal life support survived to hospital discharge (51.9% without ANS exposure; 72.3% with ANS exposure), yet few survived without a major morbidity (9.1% without ANS exposure; 14.6% with ANS exposure). This study, which included more than 1000 infants born at 22 weeks’ gestational age who received postnatal life support, to our knowledge, is the largest published cohort of this population to date, affording the statistical power to examine the association at the current edge of viability, an age in which relevant data are lacking. Although the survival of 22-week infants in our cohort was twice as high with ANS exposure, 38.5% vs 17.7% without ANS exposure, the rate of survival without major morbidities remained very low, 4.4% with ANS exposure and 1.0% without ANS exposure.

    As a pragmatic analysis, ANS exposure was defined as maternal receipt of ANS at any time prior to delivery. Previous multicenter network analyses have chosen any ANS as often the prescribed course is not completed, and because any ANS represents a more conservative estimate of the effects of ANS treatment than a complete course.14 The evidence shows a dose-dependent protective effect for ANS including protection against death or neurodevelopmental impairment in extremely preterm infants,44-46 with a rapid decline in mortality seen at ANS to birth intervals of less than 12 hours.47 This data supports our approach, and the pragmatic recommendation not to forgo treatment with ANS solely based on the assumption that a full course of therapy will not be completed.

    Decisions regarding inclusion of major morbidities were informed by evidence of increased risk of a late death or neurosensory impairment in extremely low-birth-weight infants who survived to 36 weeks’ PMA.48,49 For this reason, CLD, severe intraventricular hemorrhage, cystic periventricular leukomalacia, severe retinopathy of prematurity, necrotizing enterocolitis, and culture-confirmed infection were included, recognizing that each diagnosis carries a different risk for subsequent development of neurodevelopmental impairment, and may be valued differently by medical professionals and families.50,51 This cohort was followed to hospital discharge, lacking important long-term follow-up.

    The improved survival in our 2012 to 2016 cohort compared with previously published work6,12,17,52-54 likely reflects continued improved survival outcomes over time. We also show higher rates of extremely preterm infants receiving postnatal life support (30.8% at 22 weeks; 87.1% at 23 weeks) compared with the 2006 to 2011 Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development cohort (22.1% at 22 weeks; 71.8% at 23 weeks) by Rysavy et al,6 potentially owing to continued trends over time, or a larger cohort more representative of national practice. Our finding of the differential exposure to ANS at 22 to 25 weeks among racial and ethnic groups confirms previous findings by Carlo et al,17 and remains a necessary area for future research and advocacy. Although ANS treatment has not been found to increase the risk of chorioamnionitis,10 the differential exposure in our cohort at 23 to 25 weeks likely reflects confounding by indication as often this diagnosis is made in the context of hospital admission, obstetrical care, and counseling. Although mothers treated with ANS had higher rates of chorioamnionitis, we do not know the time relationship between infection diagnosis and receipt of ANS, and possible association with premature prolonged rupture of membranes. Importantly, at each gestational age week and overall, survival without culture-confirmed infection was greater for infants with ANS exposure, compared with postnatal life support alone.

    Limitations

    A major limitation of examining the association between ANS exposure and survival outcomes with an observational cohort study is confounding by indication. Although statistical methods allow adjustment for confounding, there are unmeasured differences between the maternal-fetal dyads who receive ANS and those who do not. We lack data on the time from maternal admission to delivery and indication for cesarean delivery, which would allow for a better estimate of precipitous and emergency deliveries. There could potentially be more high-risk pregnancies and deliveries in the group lacking ANS exposure, causing unmeasured elevated baseline mortality risk in this group. There also may be a nuanced approach with selection bias of active perinatal management, including the receipt of ANS, based on the perceived prognosis of the fetus based on factors such as estimated fetal weight and sex.55 Residual confounding likely persists, but sensitivity analyses suggest that this is unlikely to explain the study findings.

    Considering differential neonatal treatment, previous studies have shown that periviable infants with ANS exposure are more likely to receive aggressive treatment in the delivery room, to survive the delivery room, and to survive to hospital discharge.56,57 Importantly, however, as chest compressions and epinephrine have been noted previously as prognostic markers for adverse neurodevelopmental outcomes, families may decide in counseling before birth to decline trials of these interventions if initial ventilatory support fails to stabilize the heart rate of their periviable infant in a normal range.58-60 We therefore used a composite measure to define postnatal life support adapted from previously published work by Rysavy et al.6 The study lacks data on the proportion of patients that could have received additional care if aggressive or full resuscitation was requested by all families. While the study focused on the care that the mother and infant received, the underlying intentions and understanding of the family members are unknown. As the analysis focused on liveborn infants who received postnatal life support, we do not know the quantity of pregnancies that had outcomes of termination, intrauterine fetal demise, or stillbirth, and any association with ANS receipt or nonintervention.2,61

    Finally, the infants included in this analysis are inborn at US VON member hospitals with level III and IV NICUs, consistent with the American Academy of Pediatrics Committee on the Fetus and Newborn’s policy statement on levels of neonatal care and recommendations for births at risk-appropriate sites.62,63 We caution that the findings from this analysis may not be generalizable to outborn infants, and infants born in settings with different intensive care services. Although the hospitals included in this analysis varied in volume of extremely preterm infants, volume did not have a significant relationship with survival in our model. Elsewhere the outcomes of infants treated in US NICUs have been shown to vary by the number of very low-birth-weight infants admitted.43,64 Our inclusive approach may yield a more conservative estimate of the overall survival benefit of ANS, but may underestimate outcomes achieved in some high-volume NICUs. Vermont Oxford Network is a voluntary collaboration of hospitals. Although the VON database includes nearly 90% of the very low-birth-weight infants born in the United States and is a cohort largely representative of national practice, it is not necessarily a nationally representative sample such as seen in countries with a national registry.

    These limitations, however, must be considered in the context of appropriate and feasible clinical research. Current guidelines endorsed by SMFM and ACOG recommend ANS for anticipated preterm birth between 24 and 33 6/7 weeks’ gestation with consideration starting at 23 weeks, based on a family’s decision regarding resuscitation. Although ideally a randomized clinical trial would be performed at 22 to 25 weeks’ gestation to fill the data gap currently answered by observational studies and expert opinion, it is unlikely. Antenatal steroids have been recommended with limited evidence at gestational ages of 24 to 25 weeks since the early 1990s and have become standard of care.8 A large, recent, high-quality, prospective cohort with outcomes largely reflecting national pragmatic care practices is likely the highest level of evidence currently possible to ethically address this challenging question.

    Interventions at the edge of viability raise difficult considerations about the best interests of the infant and family, and about the just distribution of limited health care resources.4,65 We are not advocating for a specific approach to interventions at the edge of viability or a change in when postnatal life support is offered in counseling and shared decision making with families. Rather, we are pointing out that there is currently discordance in the recommended obstetric and neonatal interventions at the edge of viability, which is likely leading to a discrepancy between current practice and existing guidelines. It is unclear how discordant recommendations are understood by clinicians, incorporated into institutional guidelines, and then presented to parents and family members in discussions on goals of care. Regardless of the guidelines at the edge of viability, these decisions will remain extremely difficult and must be based on shared decision making between health care professionals and the families we serve.66

    Conclusions

    We found that concordant receipt of ANS and postnatal life support was associated with significantly higher survival and survival without major morbidities at 22 through 25 weeks’ gestation compared with life support alone. Although statistically higher with ANS, survival without major morbidities remains low at 22 and 23 weeks. If informed families are offered and choosing postnatal life support with the goal of survival and survival without significant neonatal morbidities, then ANS should also be part of that decision.

    Back to top
    Article Information

    Accepted for Publication: August 8, 2018.

    Published: October 12, 2018. doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2018.3235

    Open Access: This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the CC-BY License. © 2018 Ehret DEY et al. JAMA Network Open.

    Corresponding Author: Danielle E. Y. Ehret, MD, MPH, Vermont Oxford Network, 33 Kilburn St, Burlington, VT 05401 (dehret@vtoxford.org).

    Author Contributions: Dr Edwards and Ms Greenberg had full access to all of the data in the study and take responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis.

    Concept and design: Ehret, Edwards, Soll, Horbar.

    Acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data: All authors.

    Drafting of the manuscript: Ehret, Edwards, Bernstein, Soll, Horbar.

    Critical revision of the manuscript for important intellectual content: All authors.

    Statistical analysis: Edwards, Greenberg, Buzas.

    Administrative, technical, or material support: Bernstein.

    Supervision: Ehret, Soll, Horbar.

    Conflict of Interest Disclosures: Dr Ehret is the director of global health for the Vermont Oxford Network and received program support for global health initiatives. Dr Edwards reported receiving grants from the Vermont Oxford Network during the conduct of the study. Ms Greenberg is a salaried employee of the Vermont Oxford Network. Dr Bernstein is an unpaid member of the board of directors of the Vermont Oxford Network. Dr Soll reported receiving personal fees from the Vermont Oxford Network during the conduct of the study, receives a salary from the Vermont Oxford Network, and is an unpaid member of the board of directors of the Vermont Oxford Network. Dr Horbar receives a salary as the chief executive and scientific officer of the Vermont Oxford Network outside the submitted work; and is an unpaid member of the board of directors of the Vermont Oxford Network. No other disclosures were reported.

    References
    1.
    Mercer  BM.  Periviable birth and the shifting limit of viability.  Clin Perinatol. 2017;44(2):283-286. doi:10.1016/j.clp.2017.02.002PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    2.
    Patel  RM, Rysavy  MA, Bell  EF, Tyson  JE.  Survival of infants born at periviable gestational ages.  Clin Perinatol. 2017;44(2):287-303. doi:10.1016/j.clp.2017.01.009PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    3.
    Cummings  J; Committee on Fetus and Newborn.  Antenatal counseling regarding resuscitation and intensive care before 25 weeks of gestation.  Pediatrics. 2015;136(3):588-595. doi:10.1542/peds.2015-2336PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    4.
    Kaempf  JW, Tomlinson  MW, Campbell  B, Ferguson  L, Stewart  VT.  Counseling pregnant women who may deliver extremely premature infants: medical care guidelines, family choices, and neonatal outcomes.  Pediatrics. 2009;123(6):1509-1515. doi:10.1542/peds.2008-2215PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    5.
    Tyson  JE, Parikh  NA, Langer  J, Green  C, Higgins  RD; National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Neonatal Research Network.  Intensive care for extreme prematurity—moving beyond gestational age.  N Engl J Med. 2008;358(16):1672-1681. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa073059PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    6.
    Rysavy  MA, Li  L, Bell  EF,  et al; Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Neonatal Research Network.  Between-hospital variation in treatment and outcomes in extremely preterm infants.  N Engl J Med. 2015;372(19):1801-1811. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa1410689PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    7.
    Raju  TN, Mercer  BM, Burchfield  DJ, Joseph  GF  Jr.  Periviable birth: executive summary of a joint workshop by the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine, American Academy of Pediatrics, and American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists.  Obstet Gynecol. 2014;123(5):1083-1096. doi:10.1097/AOG.0000000000000243PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    8.
    American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists; Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine.  Obstetric care consensus No. 6: periviable birth.  Obstet Gynecol. 2017;130(4):e187-e199. doi:10.1097/AOG.0000000000002352PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    9.
    Roberts  D, Dalziel  S.  Antenatal corticosteroids for accelerating fetal lung maturation for women at risk of preterm birth.  Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2006;(3):CD004454.PubMedGoogle Scholar
    10.
    Roberts  D, Brown  J, Medley  N, Dalziel  SR.  Antenatal corticosteroids for accelerating fetal lung maturation for women at risk of preterm birth.  Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2017;3:CD004454.PubMedGoogle Scholar
    11.
    Liggins  GC, Howie  RN.  A controlled trial of antepartum glucocorticoid treatment for prevention of the respiratory distress syndrome in premature infants.  Pediatrics. 1972;50(4):515-525.PubMedGoogle Scholar
    12.
    Travers  CP, Clark  RH, Spitzer  AR, Das  A, Garite  TJ, Carlo  WA.  Exposure to any antenatal corticosteroids and outcomes in preterm infants by gestational age: prospective cohort study.  BMJ. 2017;356:j1039. doi:10.1136/bmj.j1039PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    13.
     Effect of corticosteroids for fetal maturation on perinatal outcomes: NIH consensus development panel on the effect of corticosteroids for fetal maturation on perinatal outcomes.  JAMA. 1995;273(5):413-418. doi:10.1001/jama.1995.03520290065031PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    14.
    Wright  LL, Horbar  JD, Gunkel  H,  et al.  Evidence from multicenter networks on the current use and effectiveness of antenatal corticosteroids in low birth weight infants.  Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1995;173(1):263-269. doi:10.1016/0002-9378(95)90211-2PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    15.
    Horbar  JD.  Antenatal corticosteroid treatment and neonatal outcomes for infants 501 to 1500 gm in the Vermont-Oxford Trials Network.  Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1995;173(1):275-281. doi:10.1016/0002-9378(95)90213-9PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    16.
    Wright  LL, Verter  J, Younes  N,  et al.  Antenatal corticosteroid administration and neonatal outcome in very low birth weight infants: the NICHD Neonatal Research Network.  Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1995;173(1):269-274. doi:10.1016/0002-9378(95)90212-0PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    17.
    Carlo  WA, McDonald  SA, Fanaroff  AA,  et al; Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Neonatal Research Network.  Association of antenatal corticosteroids with mortality and neurodevelopmental outcomes among infants born at 22 to 25 weeks’ gestation.  JAMA. 2011;306(21):2348-2358. doi:10.1001/jama.2011.1752PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    18.
    Mori  R, Kusuda  S, Fujimura  M; Neonatal Research Network Japan.  Antenatal corticosteroids promote survival of extremely preterm infants born at 22 to 23 weeks of gestation.  J Pediatr. 2011;159(1):110-114 e111. doi:10.1016/j.jpeds.2010.12.039PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    19.
    Manktelow  BN, Lal  MK, Field  DJ, Sinha  SK.  Antenatal corticosteroids and neonatal outcomes according to gestational age: a cohort study.  Arch Dis Child Fetal Neonatal Ed. 2010;95(2):F95-F98. doi:10.1136/adc.2009.170340PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    20.
    Wong  D, Abdel-Latif  M, Kent  A, Network  N; NICUS Network.  Antenatal steroid exposure and outcomes of very premature infants: a regional cohort study.  Arch Dis Child Fetal Neonatal Ed. 2014;99(1):F12-F20. doi:10.1136/archdischild-2013-304705PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    21.
     Obstetric care consensus No. 4: periviable birth.  Obstet Gynecol. 2016;127(6):e157-e169. doi:10.1097/AOG.0000000000001483PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    22.
    Park  CK, Isayama  T, McDonald  SD.  Antenatal corticosteroid therapy before 24 weeks of gestation: a systematic review and meta-analysis.  Obstet Gynecol. 2016;127(4):715-725. doi:10.1097/AOG.0000000000001355PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    23.
    Wapner  R, Jobe  AH.  Controversy: antenatal steroids.  Clin Perinatol. 2011;38(3):529-545. doi:10.1016/j.clp.2011.06.013PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    24.
    Vermont Oxford Network.  Vermont Oxford Network Database Manual of Operations. Burlington: Vermont Oxford Network; 2016.
    25.
    von Elm  E, Altman  DG, Egger  M, Pocock  SJ, Gøtzsche  PC, Vandenbroucke  JP; STROBE Initiative.  The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies.  Epidemiology. 2007;18(6):800-804. doi:10.1097/EDE.0b013e3181577654PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    26.
    Vandenbroucke  JP, von Elm  E, Altman  DG,  et al; STROBE Initiative.  Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE): explanation and elaboration.  Epidemiology. 2007;18(6):805-835. doi:10.1097/EDE.0b013e3181577511PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    27.
    National Center for Health Statistics.  Natality public-use tape and CD-ROM. https://wonder.cdc.gov/wonder/help/natality/NatalityPublicUseUserGuide2012.pdf. Accessed September 17, 2018.
    28.
    Apgar  V.  A proposal for a new method of evaluation of the newborn infant.  Curr Res Anesth Analg. 1953;32(4):260-267.PubMedGoogle Scholar
    29.
    Apgar  V, Holaday  DA, James  LS, Weisbrot  IM, Berrien  C.  Evaluation of the newborn infant; second report.  J Am Med Assoc. 1958;168(15):1985-1988. doi:10.1001/jama.1958.03000150027007PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    30.
    American Academy of Pediatrics, Committee on Fetus and Newborn; American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and Committee on Obstetric Practice.  The Apgar score.  Pediatrics. 2006;117(4):1444-1447. doi:10.1542/peds.2006-0325PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    31.
    Iliodromiti  S, Mackay  DF, Smith  GC, Pell  JP, Nelson  SM.  Apgar score and the risk of cause-specific infant mortality: a population-based cohort study.  Lancet. 2014;384(9956):1749-1755. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(14)61135-1PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    32.
    Jobe  AH, Bancalari  E.  Bronchopulmonary dysplasia.  Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2001;163(7):1723-1729. doi:10.1164/ajrccm.163.7.2011060PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    33.
    Walsh  MC, Wilson-Costello  D, Zadell  A, Newman  N, Fanaroff  A.  Safety, reliability, and validity of a physiologic definition of bronchopulmonary dysplasia.  J Perinatol. 2003;23(6):451-456. doi:10.1038/sj.jp.7210963PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    34.
    Walsh  MC, Yao  Q, Gettner  P,  et al; National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Neonatal Research Network.  Impact of a physiologic definition on bronchopulmonary dysplasia rates.  Pediatrics. 2004;114(5):1305-1311. doi:10.1542/peds.2004-0204PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    35.
    Papile  LA, Burstein  J, Burstein  R, Koffler  H.  Incidence and evolution of subependymal and intraventricular hemorrhage: a study of infants with birth weights less than 1,500 gm.  J Pediatr. 1978;92(4):529-534. doi:10.1016/S0022-3476(78)80282-0PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    36.
    International Committee for the Classification of Retinopathy of Prematurity.  The International Classification of Retinopathy of Prematurity revisited.  Arch Ophthalmol. 2005;123(7):991-999. doi:10.1001/archopht.123.7.991PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    37.
    Spiegelman  D, Hertzmark  E.  Easy SAS calculations for risk or prevalence ratios and differences.  Am J Epidemiol. 2005;162(3):199-200. doi:10.1093/aje/kwi188PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    38.
    Wickham  H.  Ggplot2: Elegant Graphics for Data Analysis. New York, NY: Springer; 2009. doi:10.1007/978-0-387-98141-3
    39.
    R Core Team.  R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing; 2016.
    40.
    Carey  VJ. Ported to R by Lumley T and Ripley B. gee: Generalized Estimation Equation Solver. R package version 4.13-19 ed; 2015.
    41.
    VanderWeele  TJ, Ding  P.  Sensitivity analysis in observational research: introducing the E-value.  Ann Intern Med. 2017;167(4):268-274. doi:10.7326/M16-2607PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    42.
    Rogowski  JA, Horbar  JD, Staiger  DO, Kenny  M, Carpenter  J, Geppert  J.  Indirect vs direct hospital quality indicators for very low-birth-weight infants.  JAMA. 2004;291(2):202-209. doi:10.1001/jama.291.2.202PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    43.
    Phibbs  CS, Baker  LC, Caughey  AB, Danielsen  B, Schmitt  SK, Phibbs  RH.  Level and volume of neonatal intensive care and mortality in very-low-birth-weight infants.  N Engl J Med. 2007;356(21):2165-2175. doi:10.1056/NEJMsa065029PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    44.
    Chawla  S, Natarajan  G, Shankaran  S,  et al; National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Neonatal Research Network.  Association of neurodevelopmental outcomes and neonatal morbidities of extremely premature infants with differential exposure to antenatal steroids.  JAMA Pediatr. 2016;170(12):1164-1172. doi:10.1001/jamapediatrics.2016.1936PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    45.
    Norberg  H, Kowalski  J, Maršál  K, Norman  M.  Timing of antenatal corticosteroid administration and survival in extremely preterm infants: a national population-based cohort study.  BJOG. 2017;124(10):1567-1574. doi:10.1111/1471-0528.14545PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    46.
    Melamed  N, Shah  J, Soraisham  A,  et al.  Association between antenatal corticosteroid administration-to-birth interval and outcomes of preterm neonates.  Obstet Gynecol. 2015;125(6):1377-1384. doi:10.1097/AOG.0000000000000840PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    47.
    Norman  M, Piedvache  A, Børch  K,  et al; Effective Perinatal Intensive Care in Europe Research Group.  Association of short antenatal corticosteroid administration-to-birth intervals with survival and morbidity among very preterm infants: results from the EPICE cohort.  JAMA Pediatr. 2017;171(7):678-686. doi:10.1001/jamapediatrics.2017.0602PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    48.
    Schmidt  B, Asztalos  EV, Roberts  RS, Robertson  CM, Sauve  RS, Whitfield  MF; Trial of Indomethacin Prophylaxis in Preterms (TIPP) Investigators.  Impact of bronchopulmonary dysplasia, brain injury, and severe retinopathy on the outcome of extremely low-birth-weight infants at 18 months: results from the trial of indomethacin prophylaxis in preterms.  JAMA. 2003;289(9):1124-1129. doi:10.1001/jama.289.9.1124PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    49.
    Bassler  D, Stoll  BJ, Schmidt  B,  et al; Trial of Indomethacin Prophylaxis in Preterms Investigators.  Using a count of neonatal morbidities to predict poor outcome in extremely low birth weight infants: added role of neonatal infection.  Pediatrics. 2009;123(1):313-318. doi:10.1542/peds.2008-0377PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    50.
    Boss  RD, Hutton  N, Sulpar  LJ, West  AM, Donohue  PK.  Values parents apply to decision-making regarding delivery room resuscitation for high-risk newborns.  Pediatrics. 2008;122(3):583-589. doi:10.1542/peds.2007-1972PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    51.
    Saigal  S, Stoskopf  BL, Feeny  D,  et al.  Differences in preferences for neonatal outcomes among health care professionals, parents, and adolescents.  JAMA. 1999;281(21):1991-1997. doi:10.1001/jama.281.21.1991PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    52.
    Younge  N, Goldstein  RF, Bann  CM,  et al; Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Neonatal Research Network.  Survival and neurodevelopmental outcomes among periviable infants.  N Engl J Med. 2017;376(7):617-628. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa1605566PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    53.
    Soll  RF, Edwards  EM, Badger  GJ,  et al.  Obstetric and neonatal care practices for infants 501 to 1500 g from 2000 to 2009.  Pediatrics. 2013;132(2):222-228. doi:10.1542/peds.2013-0501PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    54.
    Horbar  JD, Edwards  EM, Greenberg  LT,  et al.  Variation in performance of neonatal intensive care units in the United States.  JAMA Pediatr. 2017;171(3):e164396. doi:10.1001/jamapediatrics.2016.4396PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    55.
    Atwell  K, Callander  E, Lindsay  D, Marshall  PB, Morris  SA.  Selection bias and outcomes for preterm neonates.  Pediatrics. 2018; e20180470.PubMedGoogle Scholar
    56.
    Litmanovitz  I, Reichman  B, Arnon  S,  et al.  Perinatal factors associated with active intensive treatment at the border of viability: a population-based study.  J Perinatol. 2015;35(9):705-711. doi:10.1038/jp.2015.48PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    57.
    Lucey  JF, Rowan  CA, Shiono  P,  et al.  Fetal infants: the fate of 4172 infants with birth weights of 401 to 500 grams—the Vermont Oxford Network experience (1996-2000).  Pediatrics. 2004;113(6):1559-1566. doi:10.1542/peds.113.6.1559PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    58.
    Wyckoff  MH.  Initial resuscitation and stabilization of the periviable neonate: the Golden-Hour approach.  Semin Perinatol. 2014;38(1):12-16. doi:10.1053/j.semperi.2013.07.003PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    59.
    Wyckoff  MH, Salhab  WA, Heyne  RJ,  et al.  Outcome of extremely low birth weight infants who received delivery room cardiopulmonary resuscitation.  J Pediatr. 2012;160(2):239-244 e232. doi:10.1016/j.jpeds.2011.07.041PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    60.
    Shah  PS.  Extensive cardiopulmonary resuscitation for VLBW and ELBW infants: a systematic review and meta-analyses.  J Perinatol. 2009;29(10):655-661. doi:10.1038/jp.2009.71PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    61.
    Lantos  JD.  We know less than we think we know about perinatal outcomes.  Pediatrics. 2018; e20181223.PubMedGoogle Scholar
    62.
    American Academy of Pediatrics Committee on Fetus And Newborn.  Levels of neonatal care.  Pediatrics. 2012;130(3):587-597. doi:10.1542/peds.2012-1999PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    63.
    American Academy of Pediatrics, American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists.  Guidelines for Perinatal Care. 8th ed. Elk Grove Village, IL: American Academy of Pediatrics; 2017.
    64.
    Jensen  EA, Lorch  SA.  Effects of a birth hospital’s neonatal intensive care unit level and annual volume of very low-birth-weight infant deliveries on morbidity and mortality.  JAMA Pediatr. 2015;169(8):e151906. doi:10.1001/jamapediatrics.2015.1906PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    65.
    Wilkinson  D, Petrou  S, Savulescu  J.  Rationing potentially inappropriate treatment in newborn intensive care in developed countries.  Semin Fetal Neonatal Med. 2017;23(1):52-58. doi:10.1016/j.siny.2017.10.004PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    66.
    Moore  GP, Lemyre  B, Daboval  T,  et al.  Field testing of decision coaching with a decision aid for parents facing extreme prematurity.  J Perinatol. 2017;37(6):728-734. doi:10.1038/jp.2017.29PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    ×