4.4 Article

Prenatal Inflammatory Risk Factors for Development of Bronchopulmonary Dysplasia

期刊

PEDIATRIC PULMONOLOGY
卷 49, 期 7, 页码 665-672

出版社

WILEY-BLACKWELL
DOI: 10.1002/ppul.22881

关键词

preterm infants; maternal inflammation; diabetes; preeclampsia

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Bronchopulmonary dysplasia (BPD) is a serious, chronic lung disease affecting preterm infants. Objective: To identify prenatal risk factors for BPD, focusing on inflammation. Methods: Observational cohort study including 106,339 preterm infants, live born before gestational week 37+0, from 1988 to 2009 in Sweden. A total of 2,115 infants were diagnosed with BPD, of which 1,393were born extremely preterm, before gestational week 28+0. Information on risk factors was obtained from national health registers and included maternal chronic inflammatory diseases, pregnancy related diseases, and drugs related to treatment of inflammation or infection during pregnancy. Adjusted odds ratios (OR) were calculated in multivariable logistic regression models and are presented with 95% confidence intervals [95% CI]. Results: Preeclampsia was the strongest risk factor for BPD [adjusted OR 2.04, 95% CI 1.83, 2.29]. For extremely preterm infants the adjusted OR was 1.33 [95% CI 1.08, 1.64]. Chorioamnionitis was associated with an increased risk of BPD, but only when including all infants in the analyses [OR 1.33, 95% CI 1.19, 1.48]. No apparent associations were found between maternal chronic inflammatory disease or use of anti-inflammatory drugs and the risk of BPD. Maternal diabetes mellitus, gestational diabetes and maternal use of antibiotics were associated with reduced risks of BPD. Conclusion: Preeclampsia related disorders increased the risk and maternal diabetes mellitus and gestational diabetes reduced the risk for BPD. As angiogenic factors play a role in preeclampsia and diabetes our findings suggest that an impaired angiogenesis may contribute to BPD development. (C) 2013 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

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

4.4
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