4.5 Article

Extremely Preterm Infants Have a Higher Fat Mass Percentage in Comparison to Very Preterm Infants at Term-Equivalent Age

Journal

FRONTIERS IN PEDIATRICS
Volume 8, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

FRONTIERS MEDIA SA
DOI: 10.3389/fped.2020.00061

Keywords

nutrition; body composition; air displacement plethysmography; PEA POD; preterm; fat mass; weight percentile; gestational age

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: Early nutritional support of preterm infants is important because it influences long-term health and development. Body composition has an influence on cardiovascular disease, metabolic syndrome, and neurocognitive outcome in the long term. Objective: To assess body composition in preterm infants Methods: This is a prespecified secondary outcome analysis of a prospective observational study comparing the body composition in regard to gestational age. The preterm infants were classified according to gestational age as extremely preterm infants (<28 weeks gestation at birth) and very preterm infants (>= 28 weeks gestation at birth) and according to weight percentile as appropriate for gestational age and small for gestational age. Body composition was determined by air displacement plethysmography using the PEA POD. The preterm infants obtained nutrition according to the ESPGHAN 2010 Guidelines. Results: Seventy-four preterm infants were analyzed. The mean (SD) gestational age was 28.7 (2.4) weeks, and birth weight was 1,162 (372) g. Fat mass percentage was significantly higher in extremely preterm infants in comparison to very preterm infants [17.0, 95% confidence interval (CI) 15.9-18.1 vs. 15.5, 95% CI 14.7-16.2]. There was no significant difference of fat mass percentage according to weight percentiles. Conclusions: Extremely preterm infants had a significantly higher fat mass percentage compared to very preterm infants at term-equivalent age. There was no significant difference of fat mass percentage according to weight percentiles.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available