4.5 Article

Loss of Health Promoting Bacteria in the Gastrointestinal Microbiome of PICU Infants with Bronchiolitis: A Single-Center Feasibility Study

期刊

CHILDREN-BASEL
卷 9, 期 1, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/children9010114

关键词

critical care; pediatrics; diet; gut microbiome; respiratory syncytial virus; viral bronchiolitis; antibiotics

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study investigated the feasibility of GI microbiome work in a pediatric intensive care unit and compared the GI microbiota composition of infants to control infants. The study found that the bacterial communities of PICU infants were less diverse than those of controls, with a loss of potentially protective populations.
The feasibility of gastrointestinal (GI) microbiome work in a pediatric intensive care unit (PICU) to determine the GI microbiota composition of infants as compared to control infants from the same hospital was investigated. In a single-site observational study at an urban quaternary care children's hospital in Western Michigan, subjects less than 6 months of age, admitted to the PICU with severe respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) bronchiolitis, were compared to similarly aged control subjects undergoing procedural sedation in the outpatient department. GI microbiome samples were collected at admission (n = 20) and 72 h (n = 19) or at time of sedation (n = 10). GI bacteria were analyzed by sequencing the V4 region of the 16S rRNA gene. Alpha and beta diversity were calculated. Mechanical ventilation was required for the majority (n = 14) of study patients, and antibiotics were given at baseline (n = 8) and 72 h (n = 9). Control subjects' bacterial communities contained more Porphyromonas, and Prevotella (p = 0.004) than those of PICU infants. The ratio of Prevotella to Bacteroides was greater in the control than the RSV infants (mean +/- SD-1.27 +/- 0.85 vs. 0.61 +/- 0.75: p = 0.03). Bacterial communities of PICU infants were less diverse than those of controls with a loss of potentially protective populations.

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