Chinese Medical E-ournals Database

Chinese Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology and Pediatrics(Electronic Edition) ›› 2020, Vol. 16 ›› Issue (06): 647 -655. doi: 10.3877/cma.j.issn.1673-5250.2020.06.005

Special Issue:

Original Article

Analysis of birth status and perinatal outcomes of premature infants in Beijing, 2014-2019

Jing Wang1, Huihui Zeng1, Dongyang Li1, Hui He1, Lijin Zhang1, Xiaorui Shang1, Yichen Li1,()   

  1. 1. Department of Children′s Health Care, Beijing Obstetrics and Gynecology Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing 100026, China
  • Received:2020-08-21 Revised:2020-11-02 Published:2020-12-01
  • Corresponding author: Yichen Li
  • Supported by:
    Basic Scientific Research Project of China Institute of Sport Science(Basic 17-21)
Objective

To explore birth status, influencing factors and perinatal outcomes of premature infants in Beijing from 2014 to 2019.

Methods

From January 1, 2014 to December 31, 2019, a total of 79 173 premature infants who were delivered in Beijing medical institutions and whose demographic information had been included into Maternal and Child Health Care Network Information System in Beijing were selected as research subjects. According to gestational age<28 weeks, ≥ 28-32 weeks, ≥ 32-34 weeks, and ≥ 35-37 weeks, there were 1 021 cases of extremly early preterm infants (EEPI), 7 858 cases of early preterm infants (EPI), 9 102 cases of medium preterm infants (MPI), and 61 192 cases of late preterm infants (LPI), respectively. Demographic information of all premature infants (registered residence, gender, and their parental age, education level, occupation), birth age, single or multiple pregnancy, maternal risk during pregnancy (high risk or low risk), and perinatal outcome of premature infants were collected. Chi-square test was used to analyze the incidence of premature infants, univariate analysis of influencing factors of EEPI, EPI, MPI, LPI and their perinatal outcomes. Multivariate and ordinal logistic regression analysis was used to analyze influencing factors of EEPI, EPI, MPI, LPI. Birth weight of EEPI, EPI, MPI, LPI were compared by one-way ANOVA. The procedure followed in this study was in accordance with the standards formulated by Ethics Committee of Beijing Obstetrics and Gynecology Hospital, Capital Medical University and approved by the Ethics Committee (Approval No. IEC-C-03-V04-FJ2).

Results

①From 2014 to 2019, the overall incidence of premature infants was 5.68% (79 173/ 1 394 782). The incidence of premature infants in every gear of 2014 to 2019 was 4.55% (11 355/ 249 429), 4.56% (9 549/209 455), 6.67% (15 983/239 692), 5.56% (14 674/263 991), 6.45% (13 790/213 819) and 6.33% (13 822/218 396), respectively, showing an overall increasing trend, and the difference was statistically significant (χ2=1 936.451, P<0.001). The incidence of EEPI, EPI, MPI, LPI also showed an increasing trend, and all differences were statistically significant (χ2=102.991, 244.086, 242.817, 1 381.002; P<0.001). ②Univariate analysis of influencing factors of EEPI, EPI, MPI and LPI showed that there statistically significant differences in constituent ratios of registered residence, mother′s age, mother′s education level, maternal risk during pregnancy, father′s age, father′s education level and father′s occupation in EEPI, EPI, MPI and LPI (P<0.05). Multivariate and ordinal logistic regression analysis showed that maternal risk during pregnancy, father′s occupation and education level were independent influencing factors of EEPI, EPI, MPI, and LPI. Pregnant mothers who were at low risk of pregnancy were 1.049 times more likely to deliver a premature infant with later term than those who were at high risk of pregnancy (OR=1.049, 95%CI: 1.001-1.100, P=0.047). Fathers who were civil servants, military personnel, and state-owned enterprises and public institutions employees were 1.351 times more likely to obtain a premature infant with later term than those who were unemployed or students (OR=1.351, 95%CI: 1.290-1.415, P<0.001). Fathers who were employees of private enterprises, private enterprises or self-employed were 1.293 times more likely to obtain a premature infant with later term than those who were unemployed or students (OR=1.293, 95%CI: 1.239-1.351, P<0.001). Fathers who had an education level of post-graduate or above were 1.084 times more likely to obtain a premature infant with later term than those who had an education level of high school and below (OR=1.084, 95%CI: 1.000-1.176, P=0.049). ③The birth weight of male, non-Beijing registered residence and single pregnancy premature infants were (2 455.5±601.2) g, (2 420.1±605.9) g and (2 456.8±612.4) g, respectively, which were significantly higher than those of female, Beijing registered residence and multiple pregnancy premature infants [(2 347.5±593.3) g, (2 400.1±596.6) g and (2 223.8±504.2) g], and all differences were statistically significant (t=5.375, 4.715, 709.884; P=0.020, 0.030, <0.001). There was statistical difference in birth weight of premature infants born in 2014 to 2019 (F=19.912, P<0.001). ④The incidence of congenital malformation, intracranial hemorrhage, birth asphyxia, abnormal hearing screening and genetic metabolic diseases were 0.43% (343/79 173), 0.21% (167/79 173), 6.45% (5 105/79 173), 2.34% (1 809/77 236) and 0.10% (78/79 173), respectively. There were statistically significant differences in incidence of congenital malformation, intracranial hemorrhage and birth asphyxia, and constituent ratio of neonatal hearing screening pass, fail and non-screened among EEPI, EPI, MPI and LPI (χ2=140.208, 25.281, 9 656.282, 197.692; P<0.001).

Conclusions

From 2014 to 2019, incidence of premature infants is 5.67% in Beijing, and perinatal outcomes of preterm infants are closely related to the family demographic information of preterm infants. Therefore, medical intervention and management of family demographic information for preterm infants can improve the prognosis of preterm infants.

表1 2014—2019年,北京市早产儿总体发生率及EEPI、EPI、MPI与LPI发生率比较
表2 影响EEPI、EPI、MPI及LPI发生因素的单因素分析[例数(%)]
影响因素 EEPI(n=1 021) EPI(n=7 858) MPI(n=9 102) LPI(n=61 192) χ2 P
户籍所在地         10.411 0.015
  北京市 685(67.09) 4 909(62.47) 5 779(63.49) 39 021(63.77)    
  非北京市 336(32.91) 2 949(37.53) 3 323(36.51) 22 171(36.23)    
性别         6.076 0.108
  578(26.61) 4 299(54.71) 5 134(56.41) 33 841(55.30)    
  443(43.39) 3 559(45.29) 3 968(43.59) 27 351(44.70)    
母亲年龄(岁)         128.278 <0.001
  ≤20 0(0) 15(0.19) 40(0.44) 137(0.22)    
  >20~30 216(21.16) 2 487(31.65) 2 869(31.52) 20 255(33.10)    
  >30~40 714(69.93) 4 877(62.06) 5 653(62.11) 37 632(61.50)    
  >40~50 90(8.81) 473(6.02) 524(5.76) 3 092(5.05)    
  ≥50 1(0.10) 6(0.08) 16(0.18) 76(0.12)    
母亲文化程度         36.244 <0.001
  研究生及以上 171(16.75) 1 116(14.20) 1 296(14.24) 8 817(14.41)    
  大学本科 412(40.35) 2 864(36.45) 3 466(38.08) 23 032(37.64)    
  专科 369(36.14) 2 968(37.77) 3 304(36.30) 22 805(37.27)    
  高中及以下 69(6.76) 910(11.58) 1 036(11.38) 6 538(10.68)    
母亲职业         11.792 0.067
  公务员、军人、国家企事业 357(34.97) 2 531(32.21) 3 011(33.08) 20 699(33.83)    
  民营企业、私有企业、个体户 379(37.12) 3 019(38.42) 3 502(38.48) 22 936(37.48)    
  无业人员、学生 285(27.91) 2 308(29.37) 2 589(28.44) 17 557(28.69)    
母亲孕期风险         23.408 <0.001
  高风险 121(11.85) 1 048(13.34) 1 402(15.40) 9 115(14.90)    
  低风险 900(88.15) 6 810(86.66) 7 700(84.60) 52 077(85.10)    
父亲年龄(岁)         44.168 <0.001
  ≤20 1(0.10) 7(0.09) 10(0.11) 62(0.10)    
  >20~30 178(17.43) 1 938(24.66) 2 271(24.95) 15 221(24.87)    
  >30~40 680(66.60) 4 870(61.98) 5 561(61.10) 38 030(62.15)    
  >40~50 145(14.20) 943(12.00) 1 156(12.70) 7 208(11.78)    
  ≥50 17(1.67) 100(1.27) 104(1.14) 671(1.10)    
父亲文化程度         22.069 0.009
  研究生及以上 177(17.34) 1 105(14.06) 1 349(14.82) 9 388(15.34)    
  大学本科 353(34.57) 3 004(38.23) 3 529(38.77) 23 282(38.05)    
  专科 345(33.79) 2 862(36.42) 3 202(35.18) 21 934(35.84)    
  高中及以下 146(14.30) 887(11.29) 1 022(11.23) 6 588(10.77)    
父亲职业         221.789 <0.001
  公务员、军人、国家企事业 356(34.87) 2 797(35.59) 3 434(37.73) 24 168(39.50)    
  民营企业、私有企业、个体户 361(35.36) 2 976(37.87) 3 601(39.56) 24 595(40.19)    
  无业人员、学生 304(29.77) 2 085(36.53) 2 067(22.71) 12 429(20.31)    
表3 影响EEPI、EPI、MPI及LPI发生因素的多因素非条件有序多分类logistic回归分析变量及其赋值情况
表4 影响EEPI、EPI及MPI发生因素的多因素非条件有序多分类logistic回归分析结果
影响因素 B SE Wald P OR OR值95%CI
早产儿            
  EEPI -4.093 0.245 280.210 <0.001
  EPI -1.821 0.243 56.307 <0.001
  MPI -0.975 0.243 16.149 <0.001
早产儿为北京市户籍 0.020 0.018 1.137 0.286 1.020 0.984~1.057
母亲年龄(岁)            
  ≤20 -0.171 0.302 0.323 0.570 0.843 0.466~1.522
  >20~30 0.066 0.249 0.069 0.793 1.068 0.655~1.742
  >30~40 -0.066 0.249 0.071 0.790 0.936 0.575~1.523
  >40~50 -0.243 0.249 0.946 0.331 0.784 0.481~1.279
母亲文化程度            
  研究生及以上 -0.075 0.042 3.237 0.072 0.928 0.855~1.007
  大学本科 -0.038 0.035 1.170 0.279 0.963 0.897~1.031
  专科 -0.022 0.033 0.468 0.494 0.978 0.918~1.042
母亲孕期为低风险 0.048 0.024 3.931 0.047 1.049 1.001~1.100
父亲年龄(岁)            
  ≤20 0.196 0.292 0.453 0.501 1.217 0.687~2.158
  >20~30 -0.007 0.084 0.006 0.938 0.993 0.842~1.172
  >30~40 0.050 0.082 0.382 0.536 1.051 0.897~1.234
  >40~50 0.063 0.083 0.579 0.447 1.065 0.906~1.252
父亲文化程度            
  研究生及以上 0.081 0.041 3.869 0.049 1.084 1.000~1.176
  大学本科 0.025 0.034 0.520 0.471 1.025 0.958~1.096
  专科 0.061 0.032 3.649 0.056 1.063 0.998~1.132
父亲职业            
  公务员、军人、国家企事业 0.301 0.023 164.397 <0.001 1.351 1.290~1.415
  民营企业、私有企业、个体户 0.257 0.022 135.806 <0.001 1.293 1.239~1.351
表5 不同家庭人口学特征早产儿的出生体重比较(g,±s)
表6 EEPI、EPI、MPI及LPI围生结局比较[例数(%)]
[1]
Chawanpaiboon S, Vogel JP, Moller AB, et al. Global, regional, and national estimates of levels of preterm birth in 2014: a systematic review and modelling analysis[J]. Lancet Glob Health, 2019, 7(1): 37-46. DOI: 10.1016/S2214-109X(18)30451-0.
[2]
国家卫生和计划生育委员会. 中国卫生和计划生育统计年鉴2016[M]. 北京:中国协和医科大学出版社,2016: 216-232.
[3]
张小松,赵更力,杨慧霞,等. 15家城市医疗机构早产发生情况及影响因素分析[J]. 中华围产医学杂志,2016, 19(6): 456-461. DOI: 10.3760/cma.j.issn.1007-9408.2016.06.014.
[4]
Leone A, Ersfeld P, Adams M, et al. Neonatal morbidity in singleton late preterm infants compared with full-term infants[J]. Acta Paediatr, 2012, 101(1): e6-e10. DOI: 10.1111/j.161-2227.2011.02459.x.
[5]
张小松,杨慧霞. 早产发生的影响因素及其流行病学研究进展[J]. 中华妇产科杂志,2017, 52(5): 344-347. DOI: 10.3760/cma.j.issn.0529-567x.2017.05.013.
[6]
北京市卫生局. 北京市卫生局关于印发《北京市新生儿疾病筛查管理办法》及新修订的有关工作常规的通知[J]. 北京市人民政府公报,2007, 9(7): 42-59.
[7]
国家卫生计生委办公厅. 国家卫生计生委办公厅关于印发孕产妇妊娠风险评估与管理工作规范的通知[EB/OL]. (2017-09-22)[2020-08-01].

URL    
[8]
陈求凝,张雪梅,吴文,等. 300例早产儿高危因素及临床结局分析[J]. 中国妇幼保健,2018, 33(17): 3933-3935. DOI: 10.7620/zgfybj.j.issn.1001-4411.2018.17.30.
[9]
Vogel JP, Chawanpaiboon S, Moller AB, et al. The global epidemiology of preterm birth[J]. Best Pract Gynaecol, 2018, 52(18): 3-12. DOI: 10.1016/j.bpobgyn.2018.04.003.
[10]
Duryea EL, McIntire DD, Leveno KJ. The rate of preterm birth in the United States is affected by the method of gestational age assignment[J]. Am J Obstetr Gynecol, 2015, 213(2): 231.e1-231.e5. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajog.2015.04.038.
[11]
赵金琦,杨楠,宫丽霏,等. 北京市2011—2016年早产儿出生状况分析[J]. 中国儿童保健杂志,2018, 26(11): 1254-1256. DOI: 10.11852/zgetbjzz2018-26-11-25.
[12]
Fuchs F, Monet B, Ducruet T, et al. Effect of maternal age on the risk of preterm birth: a large cohort study[J]. PLoS One, 2018, 13(1): e0191002. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0191002.
[13]
Cunningham GF, Leveno KJ, Bloom SL, et al. Williams obstetrics[M]. 23th ed. New York: McGraw-Hill Professional, 2010: 804-931.
[14]
杨惠娟,于莹,刘凯波,等. 二胎政策放开对北京市早产儿发生率及结局的影响分析[J]. 中国妇幼保健,2017, 32(1): 10-12. DOI: 10.7620/zgfybj.j.issn.1001-4411.2017.01.04.
[15]
孟茜,林鹏. 二胎政策开放与未开放高危妊娠妇女分布人群差异性调查[J]. 中国妇幼保健,2016, 31(20): 4266-4268. DOI: 10.7620/zgfybj.j.issn.1001-4411.2016.20.60.
[16]
Leone A, Ersfeld P, Adams M, et al. Neonatal morbidity in singleton late preterm infants compared with full-term infants[J]. Acta Paediatr, 2012, 101(1): e6-e10. DOI: 10.1111/j.161-2227.2011.02459.x.
[17]
李茂军,吴青,石伟,等. 不同胎龄新生儿呼吸窘迫综合征临床特征分析[J]. 中国当代儿科杂志,2016, 18(10): 960-964. DOI: 10.7499/j.issn.1008-8830.2016.10.008.
[18]
Vogtmann C, Koch R, Gmyrek D, et al. Risk-adjusted intraventricular hemorrhage rates in very premature infants[J]. Dtsch Arztebl Int, 2012, 109(31-32): 527-533. DOI: 10.3238/arztebl.2012.0527.
[19]
田鸾英. 早产儿脑损伤的患病率和危险因素[J]. 实用儿科临床杂志,2011, 26(2): 128-130. DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.1003-515X2011.02.019.
[20]
Deng W, Pleasure J, Pleasure D. Progress in periventricular leukomalacia[J]. Arch Neurol, 2008, 65(10): 1291-1295. DOI: 10.1001/archneur.65.10.1291.
[21]
Chang E. Preterm birth and the role of neuroprotection[J]. BMJ, 2015, 350(3): g6661. DOI: 10.1136/bmj.g6661.
[22]
陈霆,李华峰,李静芝,等. 新生儿先天畸形检出率及危险因素分析[J]. 中华实用儿科临床杂志,2017, 32(14): 1076-1079. DOI: 10.3760/cma.j.issn.2095-428X.2017.14.009.
[23]
Shrestha S, Shrestha A. Prevalence of congenital malformations among babies delivered at a tertiary care hospital[J]. JNMA J Nepal Med Assoc, 2020, 58(225): 310-313. DOI: 10.31729/jnma.4985.
[1] Guannan He, Xi Chen, Jing Zhao, Bei Tang, Yan Bai, Ling Zhang. Value of craniofacial five-view method in diagnosis of fetal craniofacial malformations at 11-13+6 weeks of gestation[J]. Chinese Journal of Medical Ultrasound (Electronic Edition), 2022, 19(08): 791-795.
[2] Wenlin Li, Ling Yang, Kaihui Xing, Caihua Chen, Lihua Zhong, Yaqin Zhang, Wei Zhang. Analysis of early diagnostic value of umbilical artery blood gas analysis combined with amplitude integrated electroencephalography in neonatal asphyxia brain injury[J]. Chinese Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology and Pediatrics(Electronic Edition), 2023, 19(05): 550-558.
[3] Wen Zhang, Yanchun Zhang, Kaibo Liu, Hongyan Xu. Prenatal MRI diagnosis and perinatal outcome of fetal congenital hydrocephalus in Beijing[J]. Chinese Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology and Pediatrics(Electronic Edition), 2023, 19(03): 345-349.
[4] Ying Chen, Yanli Chen. Causes of heart rate variability and perinatal outcomes in elderly pregnant women[J]. Chinese Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology and Pediatrics(Electronic Edition), 2023, 19(03): 295-301.
[5] Jinwei Chen, Changping Dai, Weihui Shentu, Weijuan Zhang, Rui Zhang, Hongying Wang. Screening time and detection rate of prenatal ultrasonography at different pregnancy trimesters for fetal congenital cleft lip and palate[J]. Chinese Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology and Pediatrics(Electronic Edition), 2022, 18(04): 442-448.
[6] Lei Liu, Yingsi Li, Hang Zhou, Ken Cheng, Ying Huo, Tingying Lei. Clinical analysis of fetal prognosis of single umbilical artery with other congenital structural malformations[J]. Chinese Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology and Pediatrics(Electronic Edition), 2022, 18(04): 427-432.
[7] Lu Zhang, Huijuan Yang, Kaibo Liu. Risk factors of perinatal outcomes of surviving baby after vanishing twin syndrome[J]. Chinese Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology and Pediatrics(Electronic Edition), 2022, 18(04): 400-409.
[8] Si Wang, Qing Hu, Hua Liao, Xiaodong Wang, Haiyan Yu. Analysis of perinatal outcomes of pregnant women with congenital anomaly of genital organ[J]. Chinese Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology and Pediatrics(Electronic Edition), 2022, 18(01): 87-93.
[9] Wen Zhang, Hongyan Xu, Yanchun Zhang, Dongyang Li, Kaibo Liu. Epidemiological investigation of congenital hydrocephalus fetuses or infants and their prognosis among surveillance period in Beijing[J]. Chinese Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology and Pediatrics(Electronic Edition), 2021, 17(06): 657-662.
[10] Xiaoxia Lei, Hong Luo. Diagnostic value of fetal intracranial hemorrhage by fetal ultrasonography in the second and third trimesters[J]. Chinese Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology and Pediatrics(Electronic Edition), 2021, 17(06): 679-684.
[11] Gang Ning. Fetal MRI: plays a key role in prenatal imaging diagnosis of birth defects[J]. Chinese Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology and Pediatrics(Electronic Edition), 2021, 17(03): 257-261.
[12] Hong Luo. Ultrasound imaging: ″eyes″ in fetal medicine[J]. Chinese Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology and Pediatrics(Electronic Edition), 2021, 17(03): 251-256.
[13] Xiaoguang Yang, Yumei Wang, Xiaoyan Wang, Wanli Gao, Yan Wang, Xuan He, Haiyang Liu, Jianxin Zhou. Application prospect of 5G + internet of Winter Olympics medical security command and dispatch platform in the rescure of critically pregnant women[J]. Chinese Journal of Critical Care & Intensive Care Medicine(Electronic Edition), 2022, 08(03): 253-256.
[14] Ruirui Li, Chujun Huang, Jingjin Gong, Fang He. Analysis of risk factors for neonatal asphyxia[J]. Chinese Journal of Obstetric Emergency(Electronic Edition), 2022, 11(02): 94-98.
[15] Chaojie Wang, Pengda Han, Jing Lou, Sijia Tian, Jinjun Zhang. Emergency medical services at the medical stations during the Beijing 2022 Winter Olympic Games[J]. Chinese Journal of Hygiene Rescue(Electronic Edition), 2023, 09(03): 166-170.
Viewed
Full text


Abstract