4.3 Article

Association of Antenatal Corticosteroids and the Mode of Delivery with the Mortality and Morbidity of Infants Weighing Less than 1,500 g at Birth in Japan

期刊

NEONATOLOGY
卷 106, 期 2, 页码 81-86

出版社

KARGER
DOI: 10.1159/000358189

关键词

Antenatal corticosteroids; Very low birth weight; Cesarean section; Vaginal delivery

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective:This study aimed to re-evaluate the effectiveness of antenatal corticosteroids (ACS) and to analyze the association between ACS and the mode of delivery in the context of perinatal morbidity and mortality in very-low-birth-weight (VLBW) infants. Study Design: This retrospective cohort study involved 15,765 VLBW infants born between 2003 and 2008 at less than 34 weeks of gestation and weighing less than 1,500 g at birth. Data were obtained from the Japanese neonatal research network database. Univariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses were performed to evaluate the impact of ACS and mode of delivery on the risk of infant mortality and morbidity. Results: Administration of ACS was associated with decreases in mortality rate, intraventricular hemorrhage (IVH) and retinopathy of prematurity (ROP), and was not associated with the incidence of respiratory distress syndrome (RDS), periventricular leukomalacia or necrotizing enterocolitis (NEC). When the administration of ACS was analyzed in the context,of different modes of delivery, the incidence of IVH and ROP tended to decrease with cesarean section deliveries, whereas the incidence of RDS tended to decrease and the incidence of NEC tended to increase for infants delivered vaginally. The incidence of chronic lung disease tended to increase in association with both delivery methods. Conclusions: This large cohort study reconfirms that ACS treatment is associated with decreases in infant mortality and severe morbidity. Furthermore, the delivery method may be associated with severe morbidity in VLBW infants exposed to ACS. (C) 2014 S. Karger AG, Basel

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

4.3
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