4.5 Article

Growth to early adulthood following extremely preterm birth: the EPICure study

出版社

BMJ PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1136/archdischild-2019-318192

关键词

extremely preterm; cohort studies; growth trajectories

资金

  1. Medical Research Council UK (MRC) [MR/J01107X/1]
  2. Department of Health's NIHR Biomedical Research Centres funding scheme at UCLH/UCL
  3. MRC [MR/J01107X/1, G0401525] Funding Source: UKRI

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective To investigate growth trajectories from age 2.5 to 19 years in individuals born before 26 weeks of gestation (extremely preterm; EP) compared with term-born controls. Methods Multilevel modelling of growth data from the EPICure study, a prospective 1995 birth cohort of 315 EP participants born in the UK and Ireland and 160 term-born controls recruited at school age. Height, weight, head circumference and body mass index (BMI) z-scores were derived from UK standards at ages 2.5, 6, 11 and 19 years. Results 129 (42%) EP children were assessed at 19 years. EP individuals were on average 4.0 cm shorter and 6.8 kg lighter with a 1.5 cm smaller head circumference relative to controls at 19 years. Relative to controls, EP participants grew faster in weight by 0.06 SD per year (95% CI 0.05 to 0.07), in head circumference by 0.04 SD (95% CI 0.03 to 0.05), but with no catch-up in height. For the EP group, because of weight catch-up between 6 and 19 years, BMI was significantly elevated at 19 years to +0.32 SD; 23.4% had BMI >25 kg/m(2)and 6.3% >30 kg/m(2)but these proportions were similar to those in control subjects. EP and control participants showed similar pubertal development in early adolescence, which was not associated with height at 19 years in either study group. Growth through childhood was related to birth characteristics and to neonatal feeding practices. Conclusions EP participants remained shorter and lighter and had smaller head circumferences than reference data or controls in adulthood but had elevated BMI.

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

4.5
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