4.6 Article

Clinical Neonatal Seizures are Independently Associated with Outcome in Infants at Risk for Hypoxic-Ischemic Brain Injury

期刊

JOURNAL OF PEDIATRICS
卷 155, 期 3, 页码 318-323

出版社

MOSBY-ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.jpeds.2009.03.040

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Center for Research Resources (NCRR) [UL RR024131-01]
  2. National Institutes of Health (NIH) [NS40117]
  3. NIH Roadmap for Medical Research
  4. National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke Neurological Sciences Academic Development Award [NS01692]
  5. Canadian Institutes of Health Research
  6. Michael Smith Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective To examine whether neonatal seizures are associated with neurodevelopmental outcomes in infants with hypoxia-ischemia independent of the presence and severity of brain injury seen on magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). Study design We used multivariate regression to examine the independent effect of clinical neonatal seizures and their treatment on neurodevelopment in 77 term newborns at risk for hypoxic-ischemic brain injury. Clinical seizures were recorded prospectively, and high-resolution newborn MRI measured the severity of brain injury. The outcome measure was the Full-Scale Intelligence Quotient (FSIQ) of the Wechsler Preschool and Primary Scale of Intelligence-Revised and neuromotor score at age 4 years. Results After controlling for severity of injury on MRI, the children with neonatal seizures had worse motor and cognitive outcomes compared with those without seizures. The magnitude of effect varied with seizure severity; children with severe seizures had a lower FSIQ than those with mild/moderate seizures (P <.0001). Conclusions Clinical neonatal seizures in the setting of birth asphyxia are associated with worse neurodevelopmental outcome, independent of the severity of hypoxic-ischemic brain injury. Randomized controlled trials are needed to determine whether differences in seizure treatment can improve outcome. (J Pediatr 2009,155:318-23).

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据