Article Text

Download PDFPDF
Trends in infant mortality due to haemolytic disease and other perinatal jaundice in the USA, 1999–2020
  1. Ramesh Vidavalur1,2,
  2. Vinod K Bhutani3
  1. 1 Department of Pediatrics, Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, New York, USA
  2. 2 Department of Pediatrics, Division of Neonatology, Cayuga Medical Center, Ithaca, New York, USA
  3. 3 Neonatal Perinatal Medicine, Lucile Salter Packard Children’s Hospital, Stanford, California, USA
  1. Correspondence to Dr Ramesh Vidavalur, Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, NY 14850, USA; rav2016{at}

Statistics from

Request Permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

Monitoring infant mortality rates (IMRs) related to severe neonatal hyperbilirubinaemia is crucial. Periodic updates of evidence-based clinical practice guidelines since 1994 have improved care and monitoring for hyperbilirubinaemia in newborns.1 2 However, knowledge gaps exist regarding IMRs associated with jaundice over the past two decades. This study aims to fill these gaps by utilising a national dataset to assess IMR prevalence rates, causes and trends associated with perinatal jaundice.

To analyse IMR up to 1 year of age, this cross-sectional study used the US CDC-WONDER birth/infant death-linked database from 1999 to 2020 (accessed at on 24 November 2022). Deaths attributed to hyperbilirubinaemia (ICD-10 codes P55, P56, P57, P58, P59) as the underlying cause of death were included (online supplemental file 1). IMR was calculated per 1 million live births, along with Poisson-modelled 95% CIs. We performed bivariate analysis (GraphPad Prism V.9) to evaluate IMR, based on birth certificate-based maternal race, with statistical significance set at p<0.05. Trends were identified …

View Full Text


  • Contributors RV had full access to all the data in the study and takes responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis. RV and VKB drafted the initial manuscript, analysed data and critically reviewed the final manuscript. Both authors contributed equally to the paper.

  • Funding The authors have not declared a specific grant for this research from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.

  • Competing interests None declared.

  • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; internally peer reviewed.

  • Supplemental material This content has been supplied by the author(s). It has not been vetted by BMJ Publishing Group Limited (BMJ) and may not have been peer-reviewed. Any opinions or recommendations discussed are solely those of the author(s) and are not endorsed by BMJ. BMJ disclaims all liability and responsibility arising from any reliance placed on the content. Where the content includes any translated material, BMJ does not warrant the accuracy and reliability of the translations (including but not limited to local regulations, clinical guidelines, terminology, drug names and drug dosages), and is not responsible for any error and/or omissions arising from translation and adaptation or otherwise.