Comparison of neonatal electroencephalographic development between Tibet and Beijing regions
10.3760/cma.j.cn113903-20250108-00009
- VernacularTitle:西藏地区与北京地区新生儿脑电发育情况对比
- Author:
Bi ZE
1
;
Zezhong TANG
;
Rong ZHAO
;
Shenglan QIN
;
Qiao GUAN
;
Da QIONG
;
Hong WU
Author Information
1. 西藏自治区人民医院儿科，拉萨 850000
- Publication Type:Journal Article
- Keywords:
Neonate;
Plateau;
Electroencephalography;
Neurodevelopment
- From:
Chinese Journal of Perinatal Medicine
2025;28(2):134-141
- CountryChina
- Language:Chinese
-
Abstract:
Objective:To investigate the differences in electrophysiological brain development of neonates in Tibet and Beijing.Methods:This prospective cohort study included neonates with gestational ages of 28 to 40 weeks and 6 days, without asphyxia, hypoxia, or brain injury, who were born between January 2022 and June 2024 at the Tibet Autonomous Region People's Hospital and Peking University First Hospital. The first electroencephalographic (EEG) monitoring was completed within 48 hours to 7 days after birth, which included a 4-channel amplitude-integrated EEG (aEEG) and a 12-channel continuous EEG (cEEG). Two electrophysiology experts scored the EEG results according to a rating scale, and the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) was used to explore the consistency between different evaluators. Preterm infants with gestational ages of 32 to 36 weeks and 6 days and post-menstrual age (PMA) less than full-term at the first EEG monitoring were re-examined with aEEG and cEEG at PMA of 37 to 40 weeks and 6 days. Infants were grouped based on PMA at the first EEG monitoring. Spearman rank correlation was used to analyze the correlations between total aEEG+cEEG scores, individual aEEG and cEEG scores, and PMA, gestational age, birth weight, and head circumference at the first EEG monitoring. Mann-Whitney U test, Kruskal-Wallis H test, and Bonferroni correction were used to compare the differences in total aEEG+cEEG scores, individual aEEG and cEEG scores between Tibet and Beijing, among adjacent PMA groups, and for premature infants at full-term PMA. Results:(1) A total of 341 neonates were included in this study, including 154 cases from Tibet (nine cases in the PMA of 28-29 weeks and 6 days group, 13 cases in the PMA of 30-31 weeks and 6 days group, 28 cases in the PMA of 32-33 weeks and 6 days group, 38 cases in the PMA of 34-36 weeks and 6 days group, and 66 cases in the PMA of 37-40 weeks and 6 days group) and 187 cases from Beijing (10 cases in the PMA of 28-29 weeks and 6 days group, 10 cases in the PMA of 30-31 weeks and 6 days group, 16 cases in the PMA of 32-33 weeks and 6 days group, 91 cases in the PMA of 34-36 weeks and 6 days group, and 60 cases in the PMA of 37-40 weeks and 6 days group). (2) Inter-rater consistency:the consistency of PMA inferred based on the total aEEC+CEEC score and actual PMA was high in two raters ( ICCrater one=0.96, ICCrater two=0.94, both P<0.01). (3) The correlation between total aEEG+cEEG score and PMA ( r=0.80) was stronger than that between the aEEG alone or cEEG scores and PMA ( r were 0.79 and 0.66, respectively). The total aEEG+cEEG score also correlated with gestational age at birth ( r=0.74), birth weight ( r=0.69), and head circumference at first EEG monitoring ( r=0.69) (all P<0.01). (4) Regardless of whether in Tibet or Beijing, the total aEEG+cEEG score increased sequentially in the PMA of 30- 31 weeks and 6 days, 32-33 weeks and 6 days, 34-36 weeks and 6 days, and 37-40 weeks and 6 days groups; the cEEG score increased sequentially in the PMA of 32-33 weeks and 6 days group, 34-36 weeks and 6 days group, and 37-40 weeks and 6 days groups; the aEEG score in the PMA 32- 33 weeks and 6 days group was higher than that in the 30-31 weeks and 6 days group, and the score in the PMA 37-40 weeks and 6 days group was higher than that in the 34-36 weeks and 6 days group (Bonferroni correction, all P<0.05). (5) At PMA of 34-36 weeks and 6 days, the total aEEG+cEEG score [25 points (22-26 points) vs. 26 points (24-28 points), Z=－2.62, P=0.009] and cEEG score [12 points (12-14 points) vs. 15 points (13-16 points), Z=－4.77, P<0.001] of newborns in Tibet were lower than those in Beijing, while the aEEG score was higher than those in Beijing [12 points (10-13 points) vs. 11 points (10-12 points), Z=2.17, P=0.030]; at PMA of 37-40 weeks and 6 days, the cEEG score of newborns in Tibet was lower than those in Beijing [16 points (15-17 points) vs. 17 points (15-18 points), Z=－2.27, P=0.023]. (6) The total aEEG+cEEG score of preterm infants born at 32 to 33 weeks and 6 days in Tibet was lower at PMA full-term compared to those in Beijing [27 points (26-28 points) vs. 29 points (28 -30 points), Z=－2.94], and also lower compared to the total aEEG+cEEG score of full-term gestational age newborns in Tibet during their first EEG monitoring [29 points (27-30 points)] (both P<0.05). Conclusions:In the high-altitude hypobaric hypoxic environment, the electroencephalographic development of newborns, especially premature infants, maybe lag behind of plain areas. The combined use of aEEG+cEEG may provide a better evaluation of neonatal brain development than using cEEG or aEEG alone.
