Neonatal near miss and the occurrence of negative outcomes in the first year of life: data from a national survey, Nascer no Brasil (Born in Brazil), 2011-2012

Abstract

Objectives:

estimate the strength of association between neonatal near miss and the nega-tive outcomes in the child’s first year of life.

Methods:

a prospective cohort study on neonatal survivors originating from a national survey “Nascer no Brasil (Born in Brazil), 2011-2012.” Main exposure: neonatal near miss (NNM). Negative outcomes: breastfeeding, hospitalization, and post neonatal death (tele-phone interview). For each outcome, the odds ratio (OR) were estimated by univariate (p<0.2) and multivariate (p<0.05) logistic regression models.

Results:

among 15,675 children 3.3% were neonatal near miss. Neonatal near miss was associated, after adjusting, to: weaning (OR=1.8); hospitalization after hospital discharge (OR=2.2); remained hospitalized (OR=65.6) and post neonatal death (OR=52.4) The increased OR after adjusting revealed negative confounding, such as “remained hospitalized since childbirth” (OR_crude=21.1 and OR_adjusted=65.6).

Conclusions:

although neonatal near miss reflects a good quality of health care, avoiding neonatal death, these survivors have higher risk of negative outcomes in the first year of life.

Key words:
Near miss; Infant mortality; Hospitalization; Breastfeeding

Resumo

Objetivos:

estimar a força de associação entre near miss neonatal e desfechos negativos, no primeiro ano de vida.

Métodos:

coorte prospectiva de sobreviventes neonatais, originária do inquérito nacional “Nascer no Brasil, 2011-2012.” Exposição principal: near miss neonatal (NMN). Desfechos negativos: não amamentação, internação hospitalar e óbito pós-neonatal (entrevista tele-fônica). Para cada desfecho foram estimadas razões de chances (OR), por modelos de regressão logística univariada (p<0,2) e multivariada (p<0,05).

Resultados:

das 15.675 crianças, 3,3% eram casos de NMN. NMN esteve associado, após ajuste, a: desmame (OR=1,8); internação pós-alta (OR=2,2); permanecer internado (OR=65,6) e óbito pós-neonatal (OR=52,4). O aumento da OR após ajuste apontou para confundimentos negativos, no caso de “permanecer internado desde o parto” (OR_bruto=21,1; OR_ajustado=65,6).

Conclusão:

apesar do NMN refletir boa qualidade da assistência à saúde, evitando o óbito neonatal, estes sobreviventes têm maior risco de desfechos negativos no primeiro ano de vida.

Palavras-chave:
Near miss; Mortalidade infantil; Hospitalização; Aleitamento materno

Introduction

Children born with life-threatening conditions have a higher risk of death, especially during the neonatal period. Even surviving this critical period after birth, which is defined as neonatalnear miss,these children remain with the worse prognosis, such as childhood mortalityi and possibly other negative outcomes, not yet have been reported in scientific publications, as cases have occurred in maternal near miss.²

There is no universal definition of neonatalnear miss.The definition is based on the presence of at least one clinical, laboratorial, management or pragmatic criteria. Isolated criteria associated with neonatalnear missinclude gestational age below 32 weeks (very preterm),³birth weight below 1,500g (very low birth weight),³use of mechanical ventilation, and organ-system dysfunctions or failure. These events have been extensively studied as independent risk factors for this age group.

Very preterm birth is associated with no breastfeeding,^4,5hospitalization,^6,7and post neonatal death,⁷among other negative outcomes during childhood. Very low birth weight is also known to have an association with a higher frequency of rehospitalization and post neonatal mortality.^8,9The necessity of a mechanical ventilation is a predictor on neonatal mortality.¹⁰However, it is realistic that the same occurs with neonatalnear misscases.

In Brazil, hospital-based^11-15and populationbased¹studies estimate the burden of neonatalnear miss. In 2011-2012, the national rate of neonatalnear misswas 39.2 per thousand live births.¹⁴Even considering different definitions of neonatalnear missand the representativeness of the studies, the relation between the frequency of neonatalnear misscases and neonatal deaths remains at about 3:1^1,15and 4:1.^11,14That is, 3 to 4 neonatalnear misscases occur for each neonatal death, thus dimensioning the contingent of the most vulnerable surviving children and their respective families that will demand more State support.

This study aimed to estimate the strength of the association between neonatalnear missand breastfeeding, hospitalization, and post neonatal death, in a cohort of neonatal survivors’ first year of life in 2011-2012.

Methods

This is a prospective cohort study on neonatal survivors based on the information from the national hospital-based survey“Nascer no Brasil"(Born in Brazil) conducted between February 2011 and October 2012.¹⁶In this survey, live births were monitored to verify the occurrence of neonatal death during fieldwork, and subsequently, comparing database information from theSistema de Informações sobre Mortalidade(SIM) (Mortality Information System). Mothers were contacted by telephone for interview in the post neonatal period to obtain maternal and infant information. Single gestation neonatal survivors (n=23,378) were eligible for this cohort study. About 32% of data loss occurred because researchers were unable to reach the mothers, due to they have moved or the absence of their contact information. Of 15,680 telephone interviews, five children were excluded from the analyses due to inconsistences between the date of the interview and their date of birth (study popula-tion=15,675).

The main exposure of the study were the survivors in the neonatal period classified as neonatalnear misscases (yes/no) (these data were obtained from medical records and SIM databases). The definition of neonatalnear miss, validated as survey data, is the presence of one of the following criteria: birthweight <1500g; gestational age <32 weeks; Apgar score in the fifth minute <7, referred to pragmatic criteria, besides mechanical ventilation and the presence of congenital anomalies, they survived the first 27 days of life.¹⁴

The telephone interviews were conducted in the post neonatal period. For mothers, whose child had died or continued to be hospitalized since birth, the questions about breastfeeding and hospitalization after hospital discharge were not asked during the interview. For breastfeeding outcomes, we included data on children who lived with their mothers, and in cases where the child lived with someone else, the mother was contacted to answer questions about her child.

Negatives infant outcomes were obtained by telephone interview. These included: not have breastfed since the previous day (from yesterday to today, the day of the interview); remained hospitalized since childbirth; had been hospitalized at some point after maternity discharge (exclude the previous situation); and death of a child in the post neonatal period (28 to 364 days after birth).

We obtained data regarding potential confounders, such as geographical and maternal characteristics, and at the time of childbirth by interviewing the parturient woman, medical records and cards were obtained. Geographical variables included: geographical macro-region (North/ Northeast/Southeast/South/Midwest) and the location of the birth hospital (capital/countryside). Maternal variables included: age (<20/20-34/>35 years); skin color (white/mixed/black); schooling (incomplete elementary school/complete elementary school/incomplete high school and complete high school/higher education or more); economic status based on the Brazilian Association of Research Companies’ (ABEP) classification (levels A, B, C, D or E based on level of education of the head of the family and family asset - http://www.abep.org/ criterio-brasil); marital status (with/without a partner); paid work activity (yes/no); primiparity (yes/no); smoking before/during pregnancy (yes/no) and alcohol consumption during pregnancy (yes/no), according to Tolerance Worry Eye-opener AmnesiaCutdown (TWEAK),¹⁷whose adapted categories are: no consumption/non-abusive alcohol consump-tion/abusive alcohol consumption. The exclusion of yellow and indigenous skin color was due to the small percentage of participants in these categories (1.1% and 0.3%, respectively). All variables were measured in the hospital survey. The frequency of these variables and the neonatalnear misswere compared between the loss to follow-up and the study population.

The homogeneity between the loss due to not conducting a telephone interview and the population study were assessed by using Pearson’s chi-square test, considering the statistical significance level ofp<0,05.

For each outcome univariate (level of statistical significance <0.2) and multivariate (level of statistical significance<0.5) analysis were performed by using logistic regression models. The variables selected in the univariate models were incorporated into the multivariate model, according to the geographical and maternal characteristics: starting with geographic variables (model 1) and later, maternal variables (model 2).

“Nascer no Brasil”(Born in Brazil) survey used a complex sample, considering all stages in its statistical analysis with calibration and weighting. The results presented estimates for the studied population (2,337,476 childbirths), based on the sample of 23,894 interviewed puerperal women.¹⁸Analysis of complex samples were used, aiming to incorporate the effect of the study design, and weighting data according to the sampling plan and design effect. The analysis were performed by using the IMB SPSS for Windows, v. 19.0 program.

This study was approved by the Research Ethics Committee of theEscola Nacional de Saúde Pública Sérgio Arouca, Fundação Oswaldo Cruz(ENSP/Fiocruz), under the document number 92/2010. All precautions were taken to ensure the confidentiality of the information gathered. Before each interview, we obtained a digital consent from each puerperal women who read and signed the informed consent form.

Results

Loss to not performing telephone interviews and the population study were only homogeneous in relation to the frequency of neonatalnear misscases (Table 1). For other characteristics analyzed, the differences demonstrated a greater vulnerability of loss (p<0.05): the highest frequency of loss were in the North and Northeast regions; in the countryside; public payment source; maternal age less than 35 years old; mixed and black colored skin; low schooling level; non-paid work; low socioeconomic status; without a partner; multiparous and maternal smokers (Table 1).

Table 1
Comparison among the interviewees (population study) and the non-interviewees (losses) by phone interviews, Nascer no Brasil (Born in Brazil) survey, 2011-2012.

Variables	n (unweighted)*	% losses on follow-up (weighted)	p **
Main Exposure
Near Miss			0.586
yes	762	31.4
no	22,392	32.3
Geographic
Region			<0.001
North	2,805	47.2
Northeast	5,935	45.6
Southeast	7,861	26.7
South	4,055	15.7
Midwest	2,722	29.9
Hospital location			<0.001
capital	7,370	27.4
countryside	16,008	34.7
Maternal
Age group (years)			<0.001
<20	4,240	39.5
20-34	16,552	31.0
≥35	2,582	29.6
Skin color
white	8,407	25.6	<0.001
black	1,816	37.5
mixed	12,798	36.1
Paid work
yes	9,934	25.3	<0.001
no	13,441	37.7
Schooling
incomplete elementary school	5,814	48.6	<0.001
complete elementary school	5,607	32.2
high school	9,141	24.9
higher education or more	2,712	22.7
Economic status			<0.001
Upper class (A+B)	6,540	21.7
Middle class (C)	11,391	28.6
Lower class (D+E)	5,229	53.4
Marital Status			0.009
With a partner	4,000	34.2
Without a partner	19,365	32.0
Primiparity			<0.001
yes	10,930	29.8
no	12,447	34.8
Smoking			0.007
yes	3,688	34.3
no	19,676	32.1
Consumption of alcohol			<0.001
no	19,872	32.9
non-abusive alcohol consume	852	24.4
abusive alcohol consume	2,108	30.6

• Note: Only livebirths of single birth were selected;
• ^*
  Not all the totals are equal due to the ignored information;
• ^**
  Pearson's chi-square test.

Of 15,675 children whose information was gathered by their mothers via telephone interview, there were 40 post neonatal deaths, 49 children remained hospitalized since childbirth, and 705 children who were rehospitalized after maternity discharge, of which 11 remained hospitalized at the time of the interview. The proportion of neonatalnear misscases in the population study was 3.3%. The results of the univariate analysis for each outcome are presented in Table 2.

Table 2
Univariate analysis on geographic and maternal characteristics according to negative infant outcome, Brazil, 2011-2012.

Variables	Did not breastfeed yesterday/today			Hospitalization after discharge of childbirth			Remain hospitalized			Post neonatal death
	OR	CI95%	p	OR	CI95%	p	OR	CI95%	p	OR	CI95%	p
Main Exposure
Near Miss			<0.001			0.131			<0.001			<0.001
yes	1.67	1.31-2.14		2.14	1.45-3.14		21.133	6.82-65.5		51.41	22.45-117.7
no	1			1			1			1
Geographic
Region			<0.001			0.006			0.044			0.055
North	0.34	0.24- 0.48		0.67	0.47-0.95		9.30	1.96-44.0		0.34	0.04-2.64
Northeast	0.85	0.65- 1.11		0.65	0.48-0.89		8.05	1.30-49.9		1.25	0.41-3.77
Southeast	0.78	0.64-0.95		0.63	0.49-0;81		7.33	1.81-29.6		0.35	0.11-1.08
South	1			1			1			1
Midwest	0.55	0.43-0.71		0.74	0.49-1.10		4.76	0.96-23.5
Hospital location			0.161			0.906			0.172			0.187
capital	1			1			1			1
countryside	1.15	0.95-1.39		1.01	0.83-1.24		0.46	0.15-1.41		0.55	0.23-1.33
Maternal
Age group (years)			0.057			0.667			0.853			0.446
<20	0.90	0.76-1.07		1.11	0.88-1.40		1.07	0.36-3.19		1.65	0.64-4.23
20-34	1			1			1			1
≥35	1.25	0.97-1.62		0.98	0.72-1.34		0.75	0.21-2.60		0.64	0.14-2.95
Skin color			<0.001			0.028			0.697			0.405
white	1			1			1			1
black	0.88	0.60-1.30		0.83	0.61-1.14		1.06	0.14-8.05		0.90	0.20-4.05
mixed	0.75	0.65-0.86		0.77	0.63-0.93		1.49	0.58-3.81		0.57	0.25-1.32
Paid work			0.006			0.648			0.154			0.702
yes	1			0.95	0.78-1.17		1.93	0.78-4.78		1.18	0.50-2.80
no	0.85	0.76-0.95		1			1			1
Schooling			0.173			0.280			0.192			0.623
incomplete elementary school	0.92	0.67-1.16		0.98	0.69-1.40		1.31	0.39-4.39		0.96	0.23-4.10
complete elementary school	0.76	0.56-1.04		1.18	0.87-1.62		2.79	0.73-10.7		0.47	0.12-1.86
high school	0.88	0.67-1.16		0.94	0.68-1.28		0.81	0.24-2.70		0.85	0.25-2.80
higher education or more	1			1			1			1
Economic status			0.007			0.729			0.062			0.383
Upper class (A+B)	1			1			1			1
Middle class (C)	0.76	0.62-0.93		1.09	0.88-1.35		2.55	0.92-7.06		0.69	0.28-1.72
Lower class (D+E)	0.71	0.56-0.90		1.05	0.80-1.39		0.71	0.25-2.01		1.44	0.48-4.30
Marital status			<0.001			0.822			0.921			0.298
With a partner	1.17	0.98-1.41		0.97	0.75-1.25		1.05	0.41-2.72		0.57	0.20-1.65
Without a partner	1			1			1			1
Primiparity			0.007			0.219			0.479			0.087
yes	1			1			1			1
no	0.80	0.69-0.94		1.13	0.93-1.38		1.41	0.54-3.67		0.49	0.22-1.11
Smoking			0.028			0.991			0.179			0.746
yes	1.20	1.02-1.41		1.00	0.79-1.27		2.74	0.63-11.9		0.85	0.32-2.26
no	1			1			1			1
Consumption of alcohol			0.802			0.108			0.221			<0.001
no	1			1			1			1
non-suspected of heavy	1.04	0.74-1.48		1.10	0.72-1.68		0.69	0.09-5.25		0.00	0.00-0.00
Suspected of heavy consume	1.09	0.85-1.39		0.73	0.52-1.01		3.97	0.80-19.69		1.34	0.37-4.93

Neonatalnear misswas strongly associated with all the outcomes (p<0.001). Statistical univariate analysis revealed geographical characteristics, excluding hospital location concerning hospitalization after hospital discharge were associated with the outcomes (p<0.2), although the directions were distinct from each other. All the regions when compared to the South region presented a protective effect on no breastfeeding and hospitalization after maternity discharge, and a risk effect on remained hospitalized since childbirth. The location of the countryside hospital represented a risk factor for no breastfeeding and a protective factor on remained hospitalized since childbirth and post neonatal death. All the maternal characteristics, except for alcohol consumption during pregnancy, were associated with no breastfeeding, skin color and alcohol consumption during pregnancy were associated with hospitalization after maternity discharge. Paid work and maternal smoking were associated with remained hospitalized since childbirth, while primiparity was associated to the post neonatal outcome.

In multivariate analysis, neonatalnear missremained as a strong risk factor for all the investigated outcomes (Table 3). Considering the most severe outcome and the lower frequency in the population study - remained hospitalized since childbirth and post neonatal death - the odds ratios were 65.6 and 52.4, respectively, with broad confidence intervals of 95%. The increase of the odds ratio referred to neonatalnear missunivariate to multivariate analysis indicate the presence of negative confounding (ORcrude<ORadjusted). This change was substantial only when considering the outcome was who remained hospitalized since childbirth (ORcrude=21.1 and ORadjusted=65.6).

Table 3
Odds ratio for the adjusted outcome on geographic and maternal variables according to the main exposure (neonatal near miss), Brazil, 2011-2012.

Outcomes / Models	OR	CI95%	p
1.No breastfeeding yesterday until today
Model 1.1	1.7	1.3 - 2.2	<0.001
Model 1.2	1.8	1.4 - 2.3	<0.001
2. Hospitalization after discharge of childbirth
Model 2.1	2.2	1.5 - 3.2	<0.001
Model 2.2	2.2	1.5 - 3.3	<0.001
3. Remained hospitalized since childbirth
Model 3.1	64.5	23.5 - 177.4	<0.001
Model 3.2	65.6	24.1 - 178.5	<0.001
4. Post neonatal death
Model 4.1	51.4	22.5 - 117.2	<0.001
Model 4.2	52.4	22.8 - 120.3	<0.001

• Model 1.1: geographic variables (Region and Hospital location).
  Model 1.2: Model 1.1 + maternal variables (age group, skin color, schooling, economic status, paid work, marital status, primiparity, smoking and consumption of alcohol).
  Model 2.1: geographic variables (Region)
  Model 2.2: Model2.1 + maternal variables (skin color and consumption of alcohol).
  Model 3.1: geographic variables (Region and Hospital location).
  Model 3.2: Model 3.1 + maternal variables (schooling, paid work, economic status, smoking).
  Model 4.1: geographic variables (Region and Hospital location).
  Model 4.2: Model 4.1 + maternal variables (primiparity and consumption of alcohol).

Discussion

The hypothesis of a worse prognosis for neonatalnear misscases was confirmed and the estimatedodds ratioson the outcomes for no breastfeeding (OR=1.8), hospitalization after maternity discharge (OR=2.2), remained at the hospital after childbirth (OR=65.6) and post neonatal death (OR= 52.4) in the first year of life were strongly associated.

We found only a similar study, a populationbased birth cohort, that presented an estimate of a burden on negative outcomes among neonatalnear misscases. There was a 4.6% reduction in the survival of neonatalnear misscases (based only on pragmatic criteria) up to five incomplete years of life in the city of Rio de Janeiro.¹Even in studies on isolated pragmatic criteria, post neonatal outcomes have been little explored.⁷

The importance of maternal breastfeeding for the child’s health extends to the second semester of his/her life.¹⁹However,near misscases had a higher frequency on no breastfeeding since the day before the interview. A Brazilian study has already shown that gestational age less than 32 weeks decreases breastfeeding duration in the child’s first year of life.⁴Unsuccessful maternal breastfeeding between neonatalnear misscan also, in part, be explained by the presence of congenital anomaly (28% among near miss cases - data not presented), as some of them interfere with the child's suction, such as the cleft palate and cleft lip.²⁰

Hospitalization and post neonatal death can be, in fact, consequences of severe conditions at birth. Among children born less than 39 weeks of gestation, gestational age has an inverse relation with the rates of hospitalization and infant mortality.⁷Birth defects are also frequent in the first year of life, accounting for 35% of the total hospitalization cost at this age group in the USA in 2013.²¹

Congenital heart disease is one of the most frequent malformations.²²After a cardiac procedure, children often require readmission in the first year of life for both further planned procedures and for unplanned reasons, and they are at high risk of mortality.²³

In an increasing severity gradient of analyzed outcomes, the hospitalization length since childbirth and post neonatal death presented very high adjustedodds ratios.Despite strong associations to absolute frequency of events are rare, which may partly explain the width of the respective confidence intervals.

Only for the hospitalization length, we detected that geographical and maternal characteristics were negative confounders of the association with neonatalnear miss.The geographical regions with the highest socioeconomic development level are in the South and Southeast, and they offer more complex and high-tech health services, especially those located in capitals and hospitals located in these areas tend to have a higher frequency of neonatalnear misscases.^11,14Among maternal characteristics confounders, social class, paid work, and schooling represent directly or indirectly on the socioeconomic situation. Maternal smoking, as a confounder, is associated with prematurity, low birth weight and cleft lip,^24,25characteristics that may be present in the classification of neonatalnear misscases and these are also related to a longer hospitalization. Additionally, smoking itself leads to a higher frequency of neonatal hospitalization,²⁶and a higher incidence of pulmonary bronchodysplasia which increases hospitalization length.²⁷

As the main exposure, our definition of neonatalnear missin this study was validated with the research data (sensitivity: 92.5% and specificity: 97.1%). It is based on the five criteria proposed by Silva et al.:⁴ three pragmatic criteria (very preterm, very low birth weight and Apgar score in the fifth minute less than seven), one management criterion (mechanical ventilation), and one clinical (congenital anomaly). In a systematic review on neonatalnear missdefinitions, only four articles were selected, and the use of higher cut-off points for pragmatic criteria is recommended: birth weight (<1750g) and gestational age (<33 weeks).²⁸We tested these cutoff points by adapting the originalnear missdefinition by Silva et al.¹⁴ and found equally strong and positive associations with the studied outcomes (data not presented). As for congenital anomalies, we agreed with the authors' discussion that many congenital anomalies that lead to death are not preventable.¹⁴Additionally, we added that the largest contingent of congenital anomalies is mild in severity, not implying a greater risk of death. Despite criticisms arose, the definition on neonatalnear missused in our study was able to identify an association with negative outcomes in the child’s first year of life.

The main strength of our study was to estimate the burden of negative outcomes among neonatalnear misscases in the first year of life. We also highlight the size and national representativeness of the sample.

Among the limitations, selective losses may have occurred, although the frequency of the main exposure was not different from the population study. The very own definition of loss in this study was the absence or change of the telephone number, which is relatively common in poorer populations, living in the outskirts, and this explains, at least in part, the greater vulnerability found. The absence in the literature of other potential confounders, or alongside unavailable data to include in the analysis may have affected the results. Self-reported maternal information, such as maternal smoking, may be underestimated due to pregnant women's knowledge of harmful effects to mother and child’s health.²⁹The fact that the condition of an ex-smoker was not considered as a distinct category of maternal smoking, it may have weakened the magnitude of the associations. In addition to self-report on alcohol consumption was measured using TWEAK. Each screening test for alcoholism has advantages and limitations concerning psychometric properties, which may result in information bias.³⁰

We conclude that although neonatalnear missreflects on good health care avoiding neonatal death, there is a worse prognosis for these survivors.

Therefore, it is imperative to invest in prenatal care to reduce births with life-threatening conditions. When these conditions are inevitable, these children must be cared for by specialists. In the city of Rio de Janeiro, it was estimated that preventing life-threatening conditions at birth could reduce up to 97.6% of preventable deaths in children under five years of age.¹The reduction in deaths and other negative outcomes, such as hospitalization and weaning have a desirable and attainable impact on child health.

References

• ¹
  Kale PL, Silva KS, Saraceni V, Coeli CM, Torres TZG, Vieira FMSB, Rocha NM, Fonseca SC et al. Life-threat-ening conditions at birth: an analysis of causes of death and survival estimate for under-five children in live birth cohorts. Cad Saúde Pública. 2019; 35(7): e00186418.
• ²
  StorengKT, Drabo S, GanabaR, SundbyJ, CalvertC, FilippiV. Mortality after near-miss obstetric complications in Burkina Faso: medical, social and health-care factors. Bull World Health Organ. 2012; 90:418-25.
• ³
  American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP)& The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG). Guidelines for Perinatal Care. Eighth edition. Elk Grove Village, IL: AAP; Washington, DC: ACOG;2017.
• ⁴
  Freitas BAC, Lima LM, Carlos CFLV, Priore SE, Franceschini SCC. Duração do aleitamento materno em prematuros acompanhados em serviço de referência secundário. Rev PaulPediatr. 2016; 34(2): 189-96.
• ⁵
  Rodrigues C, Teixeira R, Fonseca MJ, Zeitlin J, Barros H; Portuguese EPICE (Effective Perinatal IntensiveCare in Europe) Network. Prevalence and duration of breastmilk feeding invery preterm infants: A 3-year follow-up study and a systematic literature review. Paediatr Perinat Epidemiol.2018; 32 (3): 237-46.
• ⁶
  Klitkou ST, Iversen T, Stensvold HJ, Rønnestad A. Use of hospital-based health care services among children aged 1 through 9 years who were born very preterm- a population-based study. BMC Health Serv Res. 2017; 17 (1): 571.
• ⁷
  Iacobelli S, Combier E, Roussot A, Cottenet J, Gouyon JB, Quantin C. Gestational age and 1-year hospital admission or mortality: a nation-wide population-based study. BMC Pediatr. 2017; 17 (1): 28.
• ⁸
  Tchamo ME, Prista A, Leandro CG. Lowbirth weight,very lowbirth weight and extremely low birth weight in African children aged between 0 and 5 years old: a systematic review. J Dev Orig Health Dis. 2016; 7 (4): 408-15.
• ⁹
  Kuint J, Lerner-Geva L, Chodick G, Boyko V, Shalev V, Reichman B; Israel Neonatal Network. Type of Re-Hospitalization and Association with Neonatal Morbidities inInfants of Very Low Birth Weight. Neonatol. 2019; 115 (4):292-300.
• ¹⁰
  Fischer HS, Schmölzer GM, Cheung PY, Bührer C. Sustained inflations and avoiding mechanical ventilation to prevent death or bronchopulmonary dysplasia: a meta-analysis. Eur Respir Rev. 2018; 27 (150). pii: 180083.
• ¹¹
  Brasil DRPA, Vilela MBR, França KEX, Sarinho SW. Neonatal morbidity near miss in tertiary hospitals in a capital of Northeast Brazil. Rev Paul Pediatr. 2019; 37 (3): 275-82.
• ¹²
  França KEX, Vilela MBR, Frias PG, Gaspar GS, Sarinho SW. Near miss neonatal precoce identificado com base em sistemas de informação em saúde. Cad Saúde Pública. 2018; 34 (9): e00167717.
• ¹³
  Kale PL, Mello-Jorge MHP, Silva KS, Fonseca SC. Neonatal near miss and mortality: factors associated with life-threatening conditions in newborns at six public mater-nity hospitals in Southeast Brazil. Cad Saúde Pública. 2017; 33 (4): e00179115.
• ¹⁴
  Silva AAM, Leite AJM, Lamy ZC, Moreira MEL, Gurgel RQ, Cunha AJLA, Leal MC. Morbidade neonatal near miss na pesquisa Nascer no Brasil. Cad Saúde Pública.2014;30 (Supl. 1): S182-91.
• ¹⁵
  Pileggi C, Souza JP, Cecatti JG, Faúndes A. Neonatal near miss approach in the 2005 WHO Global Survey Brazil. J Pediatr (Rio J).2010; 86 (1): 21-6.
• ¹⁶
  Leal MC, da Silva AA, Dias MA, da Gama SG, Rattner D, Moreira ME, Theme Filha MM, Domingues RMSM, Pereira APE, Torres JA, Bittencourt DAS, D'Orsi E, Cunha AJ, Leite AJM, Cavalcante RS, Lansky S, Diniz CSG, Szwarcwald CL. Birth in Brazil: national survey into labour and birth. Reprod Health. 2012; 9:15.
• ¹⁷
  Moraes CL, Reichenheim ME. Screening for alcohol use by pregnant women of public health care in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. Rev Saúde Pública. 2007; 41:695-703.
• ¹⁸
  Vasconcellos MT, Silva PL, Pereira AP, Schilithz AO, Souza Junior PR, Szwarcwald CL. Sampling design for the Birth in Brazil: National Survey into Labor and Birth. Cad Saúde Pública. 2014; 30 (Suppl. 1): S1-10.
• ¹⁹
  OMS (Organização Mundial de Saúde). Evidências científicas dos dez passos para o sucesso do aleitamento materno. Brasília, DF: Organização Pan-Americana de Saúde; 2001.
• ²⁰
  Reilly S, Reid J, Skeat J, Cahir P, Mei C, Bunik M; Academy of Breastfeeding Medicine. ABM clinical protocol #18: guidelines for breastfeeding infants with cleft lip, cleft palate, or cleft lip and palate, revised 2013.Breastfeed Med. 2013; 8(4):349-53.
• ²¹
  Arth AC, Tinker SC, Simeone RM, Ailes EC, Cragan JD, Grosse SD. Inpatient Hospitalization Costs Associated with Birth Defects Among Persons of All Ages - United States, 2013. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2017;66(2):41-6.
• ²²
  Cucu IA, Chifiriuc MC. Congenital Heart Disease: Global Burden and Challenges to Eliminate Health Disparities. Ann Public Health Reports. 2018; 2(1): 26-9.
• ²³
  Lawley CM, Lain SJ, Figtree GA, Sholler GF, Winlaw DS, Roberts CL. Mortality, rehospitalizations and costs in chil-dren undergoing a cardiac procedure in their first year of life in New South Wales, Australia. Int J Cardiol. 2017; 241:156-62.
• ²⁴
  Ratnasiri AWG, Gordon L, Dieckmann RA, Lee HC, Parry SS, Arief VN, DeLacy IH, Laksminrusimha S, DiLibero RJ, Basford KE. Smokingduring Pregnancy and Adverse Birth and Maternal Outcomes in California, 2007 to 2016. Am J Perinatol. 2019. doi: 10.1055/s-0039-1693689.[Online ahead of print.]
  » https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0039-1693689
• ²⁵
  Wehby GL, Uribe LM, Wilcox AJ, Christensen K, Romitti PA, Munger RG, Lie RT. Interaction between smoking and body mass index and risk of oral clefts. Ann Epidemiol. 2017; 27 (2): 103-7.e2.
• ²⁶
  Li R, Lodge J, Flatley C, Kumar S. The burden of adverse obstetric and perinatal outcomes from maternal smoking in an Australian cohort. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol. 2019; 59 (3):356-61.
• ²⁷
  Morrow LA, Wagner BD, Ingram DA, Poindexter BB, Schibler K, Cotten CM, Dagle J, Sontag MK, Mourani PM, Abman SH. Antenatal Determinants of Bronchopulmonary Dysplasia and Late Respiratory Disease in Preterm Infants. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2017; 196 (3): 364-74.
• ²⁸
  Santos JP, Pileggi-Castro C, Camelo JS Jr, Silva AA, Duran P, Serruya SJ, Cecatti JG. Neonatal near miss: a systematic review.BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2015; 15:320.
• ²⁹
  Domingues RMSM, Figueiredo VC, Leal MdC. Prevalence of pre-gestational and gestational smoking and factors associated with smoking cessation during pregnancy, Brazil, 2011- 2012. PLoS ONE. 2019; 14 (5): e0217397.
• ³⁰
  López MB, Lichtenberger A, Conde K, Cremonte M. Psychometric Properties of Brief Screening Tests for Alcohol Use Disorders during Pregnancy in Argentina. Rev Bras Ginecol Obstet. 2017; 39 (7): 322-9.

Publication Dates

• Publication in this collection
  30 Oct 2020
• Date of issue
  Jul-Sep 2020

History

• Received
  21 Oct 2019
• Reviewed
  20 Mar 2020
• Accepted
  29 June 2020