Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Article
  • Published:

Being small for gestational age is not an independent risk factor for mortality in neonates with congenital diaphragmatic hernia: a multicenter study

Abstract

Background

Congenital diaphragmatic hernia (CDH) accounts for 8% of all major congenital anomalies. Neonates who are small for gestational age (SGA) generally have a poorer prognosis. We sought to identify risk factors and variables associated with outcomes in neonates with CDH who are SGA in comparison to neonates who are appropriate for gestational age (AGA).

Methods

We used the multicenter Diaphragmatic Hernia Research & Exploration Advancing Molecular Science (DHREAMS) study to include neonates enrolled from 2005 to 2019. Chi-squared or Fisher’s exact tests were used to compare categorical variables and t tests or Wilcoxon rank sum for continuous variables. Cox model analyzed time to event outcomes and logistic regression analyzed binary outcomes.

Results

589 neonates were examined. Ninety were SGA (15.3%). SGA patients were more likely to be female (p = 0.003), have a left sided CDH (p = 0.05), have additional congenital anomalies and be diagnosed with a genetic syndrome (p < 0.001). On initial single-variable analysis, SGA correlated with higher frequency of death prior to discharge (p < 0.001) and supplemental oxygen requirement at 28 days (p = 0.005). Twice as many SGA patients died before repair (12.2% vs 6.4%, p = 0.04). Using unadjusted Cox model, the risk of death prior to discharge among SGA patients was 1.57 times the risk for AGA patients (p = 0.029). There was no correlation between SGA and need for ECMO, pulmonary hypertensive medication at discharge or oxygen at discharge. After adjusting for confounding variables, SGA no longer correlated with mortality prior to discharge or incidence of unrepaired defects but remained significant for oxygen requirement at 28 days (p = 0.03).

Conclusion

Infants with CDH who are SGA have worse survival and poorer lung function than AGA infants. However, the outcome of SGA neonates is impacted by other factors including gestational age, genetic syndromes, and particularly congenital anomalies that contribute heavily to their poorer prognosis.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Keijzer R, Liu J, Deimling D, Tibboel D, Post M. Dual-hit hypothesis explains pulmonary hypoplasia in the nitrofen model of congenital diaphragmatic hernia. Am J Pathol. 2000;156:1299–306.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Leeuwen L, Fitzgerald DA. Congenital diaphragmatic hernia. J Paediatr Child Health. 2014;50:667–73.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Aydin E, Lim F-Y, Kingma P, Haberman B, Rymeski B, Burns P, et al. Congenital diaphragmatic hernia: the good, the bad, and the tough. Pediatr Surg Int. 2019;35:303–13.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Oluyomi-Obi T, Kuret V, Puligandla P, Lodha A, Lee-Robertson H, Lee K, et al. Antenatal predictors of outcome in prenatally diagnosed congenital diaphragmatic hernia (CDH). J Pediatr Surg. 2017;52:881–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Wynn J, Krishnan U, Aspelund G, Zhang Y, Duong J, Stolar CJ, et al. Outcomes of congenital diaphragmatic hernia in the modern era of management. J Pediatr. 2013;163:114–9. e1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Fenton TR, Kim JH. A systematic review and meta-analysis to revise the Fenton growth chart for preterm infants. BMC Pediatr. 2013;13:59.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Badillo A, Gingalewski C. Congenital diaphragmatic hernia: treatment and outcomes. Semin Perinatol. 2014;38:92–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Joshi S, Kotecha S. Lung growth and development. Early Hum Dev. 2007;83:789–94.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Kotecha S, Barbato A, Bush A, Claus F, Davenport M, Delacourt C, et al. Congenital diaphragmatic hernia. Eur Respir J. 2012;39:820–9.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Wong M, Reyes J, Lapidus-Krol E, Chiang M, Humpl T, Al- Faraj M, et al. Pulmonary hypertension in congenital diaphragmatic hernia patients: prognostic markers and long-term outcomes. J Pediatr Surg. 2018;53:918–24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Shanmugam H, Brunelli L, Botto L, Krikov S, Feldkamp M. Epidemiology and prognosis of congenital diaphragmatic hernia: a population-based cohort study in Utah. Birth Defects Res. 2017;109:1451–9.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Kassab B, Devonec S, Arnould P, Claris O, Chappuis JP, Thoulon JM. [Prenatal diagnosis of congenital diaphragmatic hernia: evaluation of the prognosis]. J Gynecol Obstet Biol Reprod (Paris). 2000;29:170–5.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Bootstaylor BS, Filly RA, Harrison MR, Adzick NS. Prenatal sonographic predictors of liver herniation in congenital diaphragmatic hernia. J Ultrasound Med. 1995;14:515–20.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Yu PT, Jen HC, Rice-Townsend S, Guner YS. The role of ECMO in the management of congenital diaphragmatic hernia. Semin Perinatol. 2020;44:151166.

  15. McHoney M, Hammond P. Role of ECMO in congenital diaphragmatic hernia. Arch Dis Child Fetal Neonatal Ed. 2018;103:F178–F181.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Kays DW. ECMO in CDH: is there a role? Semin Pediatr Surg. 2017;26:166–70.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Chandrasekharan PK, Rawat M, Madappa R, Rothstein DH, Lakshminrusimha S. Congenital Diaphragmatic hernia—a review. Matern Health Neonatol Perinatol. 2017;3:6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Bojanic K, Pritisana E, Luetic T, Vukovic J, Sprung J, Weingarten T, et al. Malformations associated with congenital diaphragmatic hernia: Impact on survival. J Pediatr Surg. 2015;50:1817–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Dott MM, Wong LY, Rasmussen SA. Population-based study of congenital diaphragmatic hernia: risk factors and survival in Metropolitan Atlanta, 1968–1999. Birth Defects Res A Clin Mol Teratol. 2003;67:261–7.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Kaiser JR, Rosenfeld CR. A population-based study of congenital diaphragmatic hernia: impact of associated anomalies and preoperative blood gases on survival. J Pediatr Surg. 1999;34:1196–202.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Stoll C, Alembik Y, Dott B, Roth MP. Associated malformations in cases with congenital diaphragmatic hernia. Genet Couns. 2008;19:331–9.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Kesavan K, Devaskar SU. Intrauterine Growth Restriction: Postnatal Monitoring and Outcomes. Pediatr Clin North Am. 2019;66:403–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Prevention, C.f.D.C.a. Growth Chart Training: A SAS Program for the WHO Growth Charts (ages 0 to <2 years). [cited 2019 February 26]; Available from: https://www.cdc.gov/nccdphp/dnpao/growthcharts/resources/sas-who.htm.

  24. Barriere F, Michel F, Loundou A, Fouquet V, Kermorvant E, Blanc S. One-year outcome for congenital diaphragmatic hernia: results from the French National Register. J Pediatr. 2018;193:204–10.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Holder AM, Klaassens M, Tibboel D, de Klein A, Lee B, Scott DA. Genetic factors in congenital diaphragmatic hernia. Am J Hum Genet. 2007;80:825–45.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Tonks A, Wyldes M, Somerset DA, Dent K, Abhyankar A, Bagchi I, et al. Congenital malformations of the diaphragm: findings of the West Midlands Congenital Anomaly Register 1995 to 2000. Prenat Diagn. 2004;24:596–604.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Wat MJ, Veenma D, Hogue J, Holder AM, Yu Z, Wat JJ, et al. Genomic alterations that contribute to the development of isolated and non-isolated congenital diaphragmatic hernia. J Med Genet. 2011;48:299–307.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

Institutions contributing data to the study included: Columbia University Irving Medical Center, St Louis Children’s Hospital, Children’s Hospital of Pittsburgh, Cincinnati Children’s Hospital and Medical Center, Omaha Children’s Hospital, University of Michigan Mott’s Children’s Hospital, Vanderbilt Children’s Hospital, Wisconsin Children’s Hospital, Cohen Children’s Medical Center- Northwell Health, Oregon Health and Science University, Meriter-Unity Point Health in Madison, UT Southwestern Medical Center. We would like to thank the patients and their families for their generous contribution. We are grateful for the technical assistance provided by Patricia Lanzano, Jiangyuan Hu, Jiancheng Guo, and Liyong Deng, from Columbia University. We thank our clinical coordinators across the DHREAMS centers: Jessica Conway at Washington University School of Medicine, Melissa Reed, Elizabeth Erickson, and Madeline Peters at Cincinnati Children’s Hospital, Sheila Horak at Children’s Hospital & Medical Center of Omaha, Jeannie Kreutzman and Irene St. Charles at CS Mott Children’s Hospital, Tracy Perry at Monroe Carell Jr. Children’s Hospital, Dr. Michelle Kallis at Northwell Health, Andrew Mason and Alicia McIntire at Oregon Health and Science University, Gentry Wools and Lorrie Burkhalter at Children’s Medical Center Dallas, Elizabeth Jehle at Hassenfeld Children’s Hospital, Michelle Knezevich and Cheryl Kornberg at Medical College of Wisconsin, Min Shi at Children’s Hospital of Pittsburgh. Funding support was provided by grants from CHERUBS, CDHUK, and the National Greek Orthodox Ladies Philoptochos Society, Inc. and generous donations from the Williams Family, Wheeler Foundation, Vanech Family Foundation, Larsen Family, Wilke Family and many other families. The authors declare that there was no funding provided for this study. Meeting Presentation: American College of Surgeons, San Francisco, CA. October 2019.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Contributions

AZ: primary author, database organization, interpretation of results, compilation of tables, manuscript writing. WF: statistician, interpretation of results, manuscript editing. RH: collection of data, coordination across the sites active in DHREAMS database in organization of data, manuscript editing. JW: collection of data, coordination across the sites active in DHREAMS database in organization of data, manuscript editing. AA: interpretation of data, table organization, manuscript writing and editing. CFK: data contribution, organization of data, manuscript editing. GA: data contribution, organization of data, manuscript editing. USK: data contribution, organization of data, manuscript editing. GA: data contribution, organization of data, manuscript editing. JK: data contribution, organization of data, manuscript editing. KA: data contribution, organization of data, manuscript editing. TC: data contribution, organization of data, manuscript editing. RC: data contribution, organization of data, manuscript editing. DC: data contribution, organization of data, manuscript editing. MED: data contribution, organization of data, manuscript editing. DP: data contribution, organization of data, manuscript editing. FYL: data contribution, organization of data, manuscript editing. DJM: data contribution, organization of data, manuscript editing. GBM: data contribution, organization of data, manuscript editing. DS: data contribution, organization of data, manuscript editing. SS: data contribution, organization of data, manuscript editing. AJW: data contribution, organization of data, manuscript editing. WKC: data contribution, organization of data, manuscript editing. VPD: collection of data, coordination across the sites active in DHREAMS database in organization of data, outline of manuscript, manuscript editing.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to A. Zenilman.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Zenilman, A., Fan, W., Hernan, R. et al. Being small for gestational age is not an independent risk factor for mortality in neonates with congenital diaphragmatic hernia: a multicenter study. J Perinatol 42, 1183–1188 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41372-022-01326-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41372-022-01326-4

Search

Quick links