4.0 Article

Morbidity in preterm infants with fetal inflammatory response syndrome

期刊

PEDIATRICS INTERNATIONAL
卷 58, 期 9, 页码 850-854

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/ped.12895

关键词

fetal inflammatory response syndrome; multiple organ failure; preterm infants; squarfs

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: The aim of this study was to evaluate the relationship between umbilical cord blood interleukin (IL)-6 concentration and preterm morbidity and mortality in premature infants born with fetal inflammatory response syndrome (FIRS). Methods: This prospective, observational study included 84 preterm infants with a gestational age of 24-36 weeks who had been admitted to the neonatal intensive care unit (NICU). FIRS was defined as umbilical cord blood IL-6 > 11 pg/mL. In premature infants with FIRS, morbidities (multiple organ failure [MOF], respiratory distress syndrome [RDS], patent ductus arteriosus, intraventricular hemorrhage, bronchopulmonary dysplasia, retinopathy of prematurity) and death were evaluated. Critical umbilical cord blood IL-6 concentrations for the development of RDS, death, and for MOF were determined in premature infants with FIRS. Results: Fifty-two infants with IL-6 concentration > 11 pg/mL constituted the FIRS group. Thirty-two infants without FIRS served as a control group. RDS, MOF, and mortality were significantly higher in the FIRS group (P = 0.001, P = 0.001, and P = 0.005, respectively). Umbilical cord blood IL-6 concentration > 26.7 pg/mL in the FIRS group was found to be predictive of RDS, with 70% sensitivity and 85% specificity. Umbilical cord blood IL-6 concentration > 37.7 pg/mL was found to be predictive of death, with 78.6% sensitivity and 60% specificity. The predictive value of IL-6 for the development of MOF was 17.5 pg/mL, with 91% sensitivity and 66% specificity. Conclusions: Umbilical cord blood IL-6 concentration > 26.7, 37.7, and 17.5 pg/mL in premature infants with FIRS was found to be predictive for RDS, death, and MOF, respectively.

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

4.0
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