4.7 Article

Retinol Status of Newborn Infants Is Associated With Congenital Diaphragmatic Hernia

期刊

PEDIATRICS
卷 126, 期 4, 页码 712-720

出版社

AMER ACAD PEDIATRICS
DOI: 10.1542/peds.2010-0521

关键词

vitamin A; newborn; congenital diaphragmatic hernia

资金

  1. Mother and Child Center of the Erasmus Medical Center-Sophia Children's Hospital
  2. Canadian Institutes for Health Research
  3. Alberta Heritage Foundation for Medical Research

向作者/读者索取更多资源

OBJECTIVE: Genetic analyses in humans suggest a role for retinoid-related genes in the pathogenesis of congenital diaphragmatic hernia (CDH). The goal of this study was to investigate the vitamin A status of mothers and their newborns in association with CDH. METHODS: We conducted a hospital-based, case-control study with 22 case and 34 control mothers and their newborns. In maternal and cord blood samples, retinol and retinol-binding protein (RBP) levels were measured with high-performance liquid chromatography and an enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay, respectively. Univariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses were performed to determine crude and adjusted risk estimates. RESULTS: Case newborns had significantly lower levels of retinol (0.60 vs 0.76 mu mol/L;P = .003) and RBP (5.42 vs 7.11 mg/L;P = .02) than did control newborns. The multivariate logistic regression analysis showed lower levels of retinol and RBP in association with CDH risk; the odds ratio for retinol levels of <15th percentile (<0.61 mu mol/L) was 11.11 (95% confidence interval: 2.54-48.66; P = .001), and that for RBP levels of <15th percentile (<4.54 mg/L) was 4.00 (95% confidence interval: 1.00-15.99; P = .05). Retinol and RBP levels were not different between case and control mothers. CONCLUSIONS: CDH is strongly associated with low retinol and RBP levels in newborns, independent of maternal retinol status. This is an important finding supporting the idea that human CDH is linked with abnormal retinoid homeostasis. Pediatrics 2010;126:712-720

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

4.7
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