4.7 Article

Intraventricular Hemorrhage and Neurodevelopmental Outcomes in Extreme Preterm Infants

期刊

PEDIATRICS
卷 133, 期 1, 页码 55-62

出版社

AMER ACAD PEDIATRICS
DOI: 10.1542/peds.2013-0372

关键词

infant; extremely premature; intraventricular hemorrhage; neurodevelopmental outcomes

向作者/读者索取更多资源

OBJECTIVE: Not many large studies have reported the true impact of lower-grade intraventricular hemorrhages in preterm infants. We studied the neurodevelopmental outcomes of extremely preterm infants in relation to the severity of intraventricular hemorrhage. METHODS: A regional cohort study of infants born at 23 to 28 weeks' gestation and admitted to a NICU between 1998 and 2004. Primary outcome measure was moderate to severe neurosensory impairment at 2 to 3 years' corrected age defined as developmental delay (developmental quotient >= 2 SD below the mean), cerebral palsy, bilateral deafness, or bilateral blindness. RESULTS: Of the 1472 survivors assessed, infants with grade III-IV intraventricular hemorrhage (IVH; n = 93) had higher rates of developmental delay (17.5%), cerebral palsy (30%), deafness (8.6%), and blindness (2.2%). Grade I-II IVH infants (n = 336) also had increased rates of neurosensory impairment (22% vs 12.1%), developmental delay (7.8% vs 3.4%), cerebral palsy (10.4% vs 6.5%), and deafness (6.0% vs 2.3%) compared with the no IVH group (n = 1043). After exclusion of 40 infants with late ultrasound findings (periventricular leukomalacia, porencephaly, ventricular enlargement), isolated grade I-II IVH (n = 296) had increased rates of moderate-severe neurosensory impairment (18.6% vs 12.1%). Isolated grade I-II IVH was also independently associated with a higher risk of neurosensory impairment (adjusted odds ratio 1.73, 95% confidence interval 1.22-2.46). CONCLUSIONS: Grade I-II IVH, even with no documented white matter injury or other late ultrasound abnormalities, is associated with adverse neurodevelopmental outcomes in extremely preterm infants.

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