4.2 Article

A maternal age of 35 years and over may increase the risk for cystic periventricular leukomalacia in very preterm infants

期刊

MINERVA PEDIATRICS
卷 75, 期 5, 页码 674-681

出版社

EDIZIONI MINERVA MEDICA
DOI: 10.23736/S2724-5276.19.05551-8

关键词

Maternal age; Leukomalacia, periventricular; Infant, newborn

向作者/读者索取更多资源

There is a significant association between a maternal age of 35 years or older and cystic periventricular leukomalacia in very preterm infants.
BACKGROUND: Some studies have shown increased risk for neonatal morbidity and mortality with increasing maternal age. The aim of this study was to assess the influence of a maternal age of 35 years, and older, on the neonatal morbidities and mortality of very preterm infants. METHODS: Obstetrical and neonatal data on mothers and preterm infants with gestational age 24 to 30 weeks, born during 2015 and 2016 after a surveilled pregnancy at 11 Portuguese level III centers were analyzed according to a mother's age <35 years versus >= 35. Statistical analysis was performed using IBM SPSS statistics 23 (IBM, Armonk, NY, USA) and a P value <0.05 was considered significant. RESULTS: A total of 415 mothers and 499 infants were included; 340 (68.1%) infants were delivered to mothers <35 years old and 159 (31.9%) to mothers >= 35. There were no differences in birthweight, gestational age and gender in both groups of preterm infants. Rupture of membranes over 18 hours and chronic hypertension with superimposed preeclampsia were significantly more frequent in mothers >= 35 years. Cystic periventricular leukomalacia (cPVL) assessed by cranial ultrasound was significantly more prevalent in infants delivered to mothers >= 35 years. The multivariate analysis by logistic regression revealed an association between cPVL and a maternal age >= 35 years (OR=2.34, 95% CI: 1.20-4.54; P=0.012). CONCLUSIONS: Our study revealed a significant association between a maternal age >= 35 years and echographic cPVL in preterm infants below 30 weeks of gestational age.

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