4.2 Article

Mode of delivery and necrotizing enterocolitis in very preterm very-low-birth-weight infants

期刊

JOURNAL OF MATERNAL-FETAL & NEONATAL MEDICINE
卷 34, 期 23, 页码 3933-3939

出版社

TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/14767058.2019.1702947

关键词

Cesarean section; mode of delivery; multiple pregnancies; national database; necrotizing enterocolitis; preterm very-low-birth-weight infants

资金

  1. Israel Center for Disease Control
  2. Ministry of Health

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The study found that cesarean section delivery is associated with an increased risk of necrotizing enterocolitis (NEC) in multiple births, but not in singletons. Additionally, lower gestational age, being small for gestational age, and having patent ductus arteriosus are all factors that increase the odds of NEC.
Objective: To investigate the association between delivery mode and necrotizing enterocolitis (NEC) in very preterm (24-31 weeks' gestational age (GA)) very-low-birth-weight (VLBW) (<= 1500 g) infants. Design: Population-based observational study using univariate and multivariable logistic regression analyses. Setting: The Israel National VLBW infant database 1995-2015. Patients: 20,223 VLBW infants, 11,832 singletons and 8391 multiples. Main outcome measures: The association of NEC occurrence to delivery by cesarean section (CS) in singletons and multiples VLBW very preterm infants. Results: NEC occurred in 7.6% of singletons and 6.4% of multiples. 71.5% were delivered by CS (64.7% of singletons, 80.9% of multiples). CS delivery was not significantly associated with NEC stages 2-3 in singletons; but multiple births CS were associated with significantly higher odds for NEC (OR 1.31, 95% CI 1.01-1.69). Odds for NEC were greater with lower GA, small for GA (SGA) and patent ductus arteriosus (PDA) in both singletons and multiples, and lower in multiples with antenatal corticosteroids. Conclusions: We demonstrated association between deliveries by CS and increased risk for NEC only in multiple pregnancies.

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

4.2
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