4.2 Article

Birth weight predicts patient outcomes in infants who undergo congenital diaphragmatic hernia repair

期刊

JOURNAL OF MATERNAL-FETAL & NEONATAL MEDICINE
卷 35, 期 25, 页码 6823-6829

出版社

TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/14767058.2021.1926448

关键词

Congenital diaphragmatic hernia; CDH study group; neonatal; diaphragm repair; CDH repair; low birth weight

资金

  1. Ladybug Foundation
  2. Men of Distinction Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In CDH patients, LBW is a risk factor for mortality and pulmonary morbidity. Prolonged oxygen requirement and increased length of stay are important considerations when managing this population.
Purpose The purpose of this study was to analyze the clinical characteristics and outcomes of low birthweight (LBW) infants with congenital diaphragmatic hernia (CDH) compared to normal birthweight (NBW) infants with CDH. We hypothesized that LBW was associated with increased mortality, decreased extracorporeal life support (ECLS) utilization, and increased pulmonary morbidity in CDH patients. Methods Patients in the CDH Study Group from 2007 to 2018 were included. LBW was defined as <2.5 kg. Clinical characteristics and outcomes for LBW patients were compared to normal birthweight (NBW) patients using univariate and multivariable analyses. Results Of 5,586 patients, 1,157 (21%) were LBW. LBW infants had more congenital anomalies and larger diaphragmatic defects than NBW infants. ECLS utilization was decreased, and overall mortality was increased among LBW infants compared to NBW infants. A 1 kg increase in birthweight was associated with 34% higher odds of survival after repair (adjusted Odds Ratio 1.34, 95% CI 1.03-1.76; p = .03). LBW infants had longer durations of mechanical ventilation and were more likely to require supplemental oxygen at 30 days and at the time of discharge. Conclusion LBW is a risk factor for mortality and pulmonary morbidity in CDH. Prolonged oxygen requirement and increased length of stay are important considerations when managing this population.

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