4.5 Article

The EPICure study: growth and blood pressure at 6 years of age following extremely preterm birth

Journal

Publisher

BMJ PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1136/adc.2007.118596

Keywords

-

Categories

Funding

  1. BLISS, The Health Foundation and WellBeing
  2. Medical Research Council [G0401525] Funding Source: researchfish
  3. MRC [G0401525] Funding Source: UKRI

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: Preterm children are at risk for reduced growth in early childhood, which may predispose them to later changes in blood pressure (BP). Objective: To study growth and BP in extremely preterm (EP) children at age 6 years. Methods: Children who were born at 25 completed weeks of gestation or less in the United Kingdom and Ireland in 1995 were evaluated when they reached early school age. Children underwent standardised assessments, including auxology and sitting BP. Results: Of 308 surviving children, 241 (78%) were assessed at a median age of 6 years 4 months; 160 fullterm classmates acted as a comparison group. Compared with classmates, EP children were 1.2 standard deviations (SDs) lighter, 0.97 SD shorter, body mass index (BMI) was 0.95 SD lower and head circumference 1.3 SD lower. Compared with 2.5 years of age, EP children had shown catch-up in their weight by 0.37 SD, height by 0.42 SD and head circumference by 0.13 SD. Systolic and diastolic BP were lower by 2.3 mm Hg and 2.4 mm Hg, respectively, in EP children, but these differences were accounted for by differences in height and BMI. Maternal smoking in pregnancy was associated with lower BP. Children born before 24 weeks had higher systolic pressures and children given postnatal steroids higher diastolic pressures. Conclusions: Poor postnatal growth seen after birth and in the third year persists into school age. Catch-up growth reduces some of the early deficit but is least for head growth. Despite serious postnatal growth restriction 3P appears similar in both EP and term classmates.

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