Prognostic neurodevelopmental testing of preterm infants: do we need to change the paradigm?

H W Kilbride1, G P Aylward2, L W Doyle3

  • 1Division of Neonatology, Department of Pediatrics, Children's Mercy-Kansas City and the University of Missouri-Kansas City School of Medicine, Kansas City, MO, USA.

Insights

Routine developmental assessments for high-risk newborns at two years offer insights for interventions. However, these early outcomes have limitations and may not predict long-term function, emphasizing environmental influences.

Area of Science:

  • Neonatal Development
  • Pediatric Neurodevelopment
  • High-Risk Infant Care

Background:

  • Longitudinal follow-up assessments at approximately two years of age are standard practice for high-risk newborns.
  • These assessments serve multiple functions, including guiding educational and developmental interventions for physicians, parents, and educators.
  • They also function as crucial outcome measures in clinical research and inform counseling for parents of extremely preterm infants.

Purpose of the Study:

  • To evaluate the utility and limitations of current neurodevelopmental assessment tools for high-risk infants at two years of age.
  • To discuss the appropriate use of outcome metrics based on the intended purpose of the assessment.
  • To highlight the need for considering factors beyond early developmental status in predicting long-term outcomes.

Main Methods:

  • Review of current practices and literature regarding developmental assessments in high-risk newborns.
  • Analysis of the predictive value of early developmental outcomes for later-life function.
  • Consideration of the role of environmental factors in long-term cognitive and academic development.

Main Results:

  • Early developmental assessments have limitations and do not always accurately predict later-life function.
  • Individual variation in outcomes is significant, with early results serving as estimates of longer-term trajectories.
  • Postnatal environmental factors are predominant in determining cognitive and academic outcomes for infants without severe neurological injury.

Conclusions:

  • The purpose of testing should guide the selection of outcome metrics, with descriptive findings being more useful for individual intervention planning.
  • Composite categorization of findings is best reserved for research purposes.
  • Future research should incorporate quality of life and parental decision-making factors relevant to neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) care.

Related Concept Videos