4.3 Article

Impact on neonatal outcome and anthropometric growth in very low birth weight infants with histological chorioamnionitis

Journal

JOURNAL OF THE FORMOSAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION
Volume 107, Issue 4, Pages 304-310

Publisher

ELSEVIER TAIWAN
DOI: 10.1016/S0929-6646(08)60091-1

Keywords

anthropometric growth; bronchopulmonary dysplasia; chorioamnionitis; very low birth weight

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background/Purpose: Chorioamnionitis (CAM) is one of the main causes of preterm labor. The specific aim of our study was to evaluate neonatal outcome and anthropometric growth at the corrected age of 2 years after exposure to an adverse intrauterine event of CAM in very low birth weight (VLBW, < 1500 g) infants. Methods: One hundred and nineteen VLBW infants had adequate placental histological data available for the study. Maternal and perinatal characteristics and neonatal morbidity were determined. The infants were followed up prospectively and their anthropometric growth was recorded in the neonatal follow-up clinic for 2 years. Results: Histological CAM was evident in 64 cases (53.8%, CAM group). Patients with histological CAM delivered earlier (27.8 +/- 2.9 vs. 29.6 +/- 3.6 weeks, p = 0.003), and they had higher incidence of preterm premature rupture of membranes (PPROM, p < 0.001) and longer ventilation days (p = 0.001). After adjusting for gestational age, sepsis (aOR, 3.355), bronchopulmonary dysplasia (aOR, 3.018) and mechanical ventilation (aOR, 4.094) had a higher incidence in the CAM group. At the corrected ages of 6, 12, 18 and 24 months, anthropometric measurements, including body weight, body height and head circumference, were similar for the study and control infants. Conclusion: Histological CAM was associated with a higher incidence of PPROM, sepsis, bronchopulmonary dysplasia, more mechanical ventilation and longer ventilation days. However, at the age of 2 years, CAM had no impact on anthropometric growth.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available