Relationship of Nucleated Red Blood Cells with Severity of Perinatal Asphyxia and its Short-Term Outcome

Mehwish Iqbal, Athar Razzaq, Fiaz Ahmad Malik, Muhammad ali, Muhammad Imran, Maham Shahzadi
{"title":"Relationship of Nucleated Red Blood Cells with Severity of Perinatal Asphyxia and its Short-Term Outcome","authors":"Mehwish Iqbal, Athar Razzaq, Fiaz Ahmad Malik, Muhammad ali, Muhammad Imran, Maham Shahzadi","doi":"10.48036/apims.v18i3.674","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Objective: To compare the nucleated red blood cell (NRBC) counts of healthy and asphyxiated newborns as a key clinical indicator of the severity of birth asphyxia and short-term outcome.\nMethodology: This case control study was conducted at the paediatric department of neonatology of Recep Tiyyap Erdogan Hospital Muzaffargarh from June 2020 to November 2020. Study A total of 112 term newborns, including 56 cases (with birth asphyxia) and 56 controls (normal babies) aged <24 hours, were included. After obtaining informed consent, blood samples were taken immediately after birth for the measurement of the NRBC count. All the enrolled cases were admitted to the NICU as per indication and observed for the severity of birth asphyxia. The relationship between the cord blood NRBC count and the severity of birth asphyxia was assessed. All the information was recorded using a self-structured study proforma, and SPSS version 26 was used for the purpose of data analysis.\nResults: The overall average age of the neonates was 6.18+2.66 hours. Mean age, birth weight, and gestational age were statistically insignificant in accordance to cases and controls. Males were in the majority (75.0%), and females were 25.0% of the case group. The mean NRBCs in the cases were 16.62 + 17.10, which was significantly higher than the controls at 1.69 + 2.42 (p- 0.0001). The neonatal NRBs average was statistically insignificant according to gender in both cases and controls, while it was significantly associated with the severity of perinatal hypoxia (p 0.0001). The average NRBC count was also significantly higher in cases of cardiomegaly, those having ventilation needs and respiratory distress.\nConclusion: The mean NRBC was observed to be significantly higher in cases compared to controls. The NRBC was considered to be a non-invasive, simple prognostic marker for neonatal asphyxia, may indicate substantial severity of perinatal hypoxia and its related complications.","PeriodicalId":184398,"journal":{"name":"Annals of PIMS-Shaheed Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto Medical University","volume":"10 5 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-09-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Annals of PIMS-Shaheed Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto Medical University","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.48036/apims.v18i3.674","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective: To compare the nucleated red blood cell (NRBC) counts of healthy and asphyxiated newborns as a key clinical indicator of the severity of birth asphyxia and short-term outcome. Methodology: This case control study was conducted at the paediatric department of neonatology of Recep Tiyyap Erdogan Hospital Muzaffargarh from June 2020 to November 2020. Study A total of 112 term newborns, including 56 cases (with birth asphyxia) and 56 controls (normal babies) aged <24 hours, were included. After obtaining informed consent, blood samples were taken immediately after birth for the measurement of the NRBC count. All the enrolled cases were admitted to the NICU as per indication and observed for the severity of birth asphyxia. The relationship between the cord blood NRBC count and the severity of birth asphyxia was assessed. All the information was recorded using a self-structured study proforma, and SPSS version 26 was used for the purpose of data analysis. Results: The overall average age of the neonates was 6.18+2.66 hours. Mean age, birth weight, and gestational age were statistically insignificant in accordance to cases and controls. Males were in the majority (75.0%), and females were 25.0% of the case group. The mean NRBCs in the cases were 16.62 + 17.10, which was significantly higher than the controls at 1.69 + 2.42 (p- 0.0001). The neonatal NRBs average was statistically insignificant according to gender in both cases and controls, while it was significantly associated with the severity of perinatal hypoxia (p 0.0001). The average NRBC count was also significantly higher in cases of cardiomegaly, those having ventilation needs and respiratory distress. Conclusion: The mean NRBC was observed to be significantly higher in cases compared to controls. The NRBC was considered to be a non-invasive, simple prognostic marker for neonatal asphyxia, may indicate substantial severity of perinatal hypoxia and its related complications.
有核红细胞与围产期窒息严重程度及近期预后的关系
目的:比较健康新生儿和窒息新生儿有核红细胞(NRBC)计数作为新生儿窒息严重程度和近期预后的关键临床指标。方法:本病例对照研究于2020年6月至2020年11月在Muzaffargarh雷杰普·蒂亚普·埃尔多安医院新生儿儿科进行。研究共纳入112例足月新生儿,其中56例(出生窒息)和56例(正常婴儿)年龄<24小时。在获得知情同意后,出生后立即采血测定NRBC计数。所有入组病例均按指征入住新生儿重症监护病房,观察新生儿窒息严重程度。评估脐带血NRBC计数与新生儿窒息严重程度的关系。所有信息均采用自结构化研究表格记录,数据分析使用SPSS 26。结果:新生儿总体平均年龄为6.18+2.66 h。根据病例和对照组,平均年龄、出生体重和胎龄在统计学上不显著。男性占多数(75.0%),女性占25.0%。患者的nrbc平均值为16.62 + 17.10,显著高于对照组的1.69 + 2.42 (p- 0.0001)。新生儿新生儿NRBs平均值在病例和对照组中按性别区分均无统计学意义,而与围产期缺氧严重程度显著相关(p 0.0001)。在心脏肥大、需要通气和呼吸窘迫的患者中,平均NRBC计数也明显更高。结论:与对照组相比,病例的NRBC平均值明显升高。NRBC被认为是一种无创、简单的新生儿窒息预后指标,可提示围产期缺氧及其相关并发症的严重程度。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信