3.8 Article

Patterns of first-year survival among infants with selected congenital anomalies in Texas, 1995-1997

Journal

TERATOLOGY
Volume 64, Issue 5, Pages 267-275

Publisher

WILEY-LISS
DOI: 10.1002/tera.1073

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. PHS HHS [U50/CCU613232] Funding Source: Medline

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: Few registry-based studies have investigated survival among infants with congenital anomalies. We conducted a registry-based study to examine patterns and probability of survival during the first year of life among infants with selected congenital anomalies. Methods: Data from the Texas Birth Defects Monitoring Division were merged with linked birth-infant death files for 2,774 infants born January 1, 1995 to December 31, 1997, with at least 1 of 23 common anomalies. Deaths before the first birthday were assessed from infant death files. Kaplan-Meier was used to estimate first-year survival; first-year survival was assessed for specific anomalies and by the number of life-threatening anomalies. Results: Overall, 80.8% of infants with these 23 anomalies survived the first year of life. We observed the highest survival rates for infants with gastroschisis (92.9%, 95% Cl = 86.8, 96.3), trisomy 21 (92.3%, 95% Cl = 89.5, 94.4) or cleft lip with or without cleft palate (87.6%, 95% Cl = 84.0, 90.5). Infants with intermediate survival rates included those with microcephaly (79.7%; 95% Cl = 73.6, 84.6), tetralogy of Fallot (75.0%; 95% Cl = 65.5, 82.2), or with diaphragmatic hernia (72.8%; 95% Cl = 61.8, 81.2). As expected, all infants with anencephaly and almost all infants with trisomy 13 or trisomy 18 died during the first year of life. First-year survival declined as the number of co-occurring life-threatening anomalies increased. Conclusions: Overall, first-year survival for infants with congenital anomalies was high. Additional population-based studies are needed to quantify improvements in first-year survival. (C) 2001 Wiley-Liss, Inc.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

3.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available