Evidence Hub

Magnetic resonance spectroscopy assessment of brain injury after moderate hypothermia in neonatal encephalopathy: a prospective multicentre cohort study

P. Lally, P. Montaldo, V. Oliveira, Aung Soe, Ravi Swamy, P. Bassett, Josephine Mendoza, Gaurav Atreja et al.

Lancet Neurology, 2019

223 participants · 185 citations

Abstract

Summary Background In neonatal encephalopathy, the clinical manifestations of injury can only be reliably assessed several years after an intervention, complicating early prognostication and rendering trials of promising neuroprotectants slow and expensive. We aimed to determine the accuracy of thalamic proton magnetic resonance (MR) spectroscopy (MRS) biomarkers as early predictors of the neurodevelopmental abnormalities observed years after neonatal encephalopathy. Methods We did a prospective multicentre cohort study across eight neonatal intensive care units in the UK and USA, recruiting term and near-term neonates who received therapeutic hypothermia for neonatal encephalopathy. We excluded infants with life-threatening congenital malformations, syndromic disorders, neurometabolic diseases, or any alternative diagnoses for encephalopathy that were apparent within 6 h of birth. We obtained T1-weighted, T2-weighted, and diffusion-weighted MRI and thalamic proton MRS 4–14 days after birth. Clinical neurodevelopmental tests were done 18–24 months later. The primary outcome was the association between MR biomarkers and an adverse neurodevelopmental outcome, defined as death or moderate or severe disability, measured using a multivariable prognostic model. We used receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves to examine the prognostic accuracy of the individual biomarkers. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01309711. Findings Between Jan 29, 2013,…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a cohort study, done in people. Its evidence level is 3 of 5 (Moderate · trial / cohort / secondary analysis). Trials without a large randomized design, cohorts and secondary analyses give moderate evidence. Reported size: 223 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free