4.6 Article

Probiotic Use and Safety in the Neonatal Intensive Care Unit: A Matched Cohort Study

期刊

JOURNAL OF PEDIATRICS
卷 222, 期 -, 页码 59-+

出版社

MOSBY-ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.jpeds.2020.03.051

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD) [HHSN275201000003I]
  2. Duke Clinical Research Institute's R25 Summer Training in Academic Research (STAR) Program [5R25HD076475-07]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective To determine the prevalence of probiotic administration in infants born preterm over time, as well as the association between probiotic administration and select adverse outcomes. Study design We performed a multicenter cohort study of infants 23-29 weeks of gestational age admitted to 289 neonatal intensive care units from 1997 to 2016. We evaluated the type of probiotics given and prevalence of exposure to probiotics over time and by site. We matched infants exposed to probiotics by several factors to unexposed infants receiving enteral feeds on the same postnatal day. We performed conditional logistic regression to evaluate the association between probiotics exposure and adverse outcomes, including necrotizing enterocolitis (NEC), bloodstream infections, meningitis, and death. Results Of 78 076 infants, 3626 (4.6%) received probiotics. Probiotic use increased over the study period and varied among neonatal intensive care units. We matched 2178 infants exposed to probiotics to 33 807 without exposure. Probiotic administration was associated with a decrease in NEC (OR 0.62, 95% CI 0.48-0.80) and death (OR 0.52, 95% CI 0.39-0.70), an increase in Candida infection (OR 2.23, 95% CI 1.29-3.85), but no increase in bloodstream infection (OR 0.86, 95% CI 0.70-1.05) or meningitis (OR 1.18, 95% CI 0.40-3.46). Conclusions Probiotic use increased over time and was associated with decreased odds of NEC and death. Prospective, randomized-controlled studies of specific probiotic products are needed to further investigate the safety and efficacy of probiotics in 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

4.6
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