4.7 Article

Use of Antihypotensive Therapies in Extremely Preterm Infants

期刊

PEDIATRICS
卷 131, 期 6, 页码 E1865-E1873

出版社

AMER ACAD PEDIATRICS
DOI: 10.1542/peds.2012-2779

关键词

extremely preterm infant; antihypotensive therapy; blood pressure; hypotension

资金

  1. National Institutes of Health (NIH)
  2. Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD)
  3. Best Pharmaceuticals for Children Act

向作者/读者索取更多资源

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the relationships among blood pressure (BP) values, antihypotensive therapies, and in-hospital outcomes to identify a BP threshold below which antihypotensive therapies may be beneficial. METHODS: Prospective observational study of infants 23(0/7) to 26(6/7) weeks' gestational age. Hourly BP values and antihypotensive therapy use in the first 24 hours were recorded. Low BP was investigated by using 15 definitions. Outcomes were examined by using regression analysis controlling for gestational age, the number of low BP values, and illness severity. RESULTS: Of 367 infants enrolled, 203 (55%) received at least 1 anti-hypotensive therapy. Treated infants were more likely to have low BP by any definition (P < .001), but for the 15 definitions of low BP investigated, therapy was not prescribed to 3% to 49% of infants with low BP and, paradoxically, was administered to 28% to 41% of infants without low BP. Treated infants were more likely than untreated infants to develop severe retinopathy of prematurity (15% vs 8%, P = .03) or severe intraventricular hemorrhage (22% vs 11%, P < .01) and less likely to survive (67% vs 78%, P = .02). However, with regression analysis, there were no significant differences between groups in survival or in-hospital morbidity rates. CONCLUSIONS: Factors other than BP contributed to the decision to use antihypotensive therapies. Infant outcomes were not improved with antihypotensive therapy for any of the 15 definitions of low BP investigated.

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