4.7 Article

Infants with bronchopulmonary dysplasia suckle with weak pressures to maintain breathing during feeding

期刊

PEDIATRICS
卷 120, 期 4, 页码 e1035-E1042

出版社

AMER ACAD PEDIATRICS
DOI: 10.1542/peds.2006-3567

关键词

bronchopulmonary dysplasia; home oxygen therapy; sucking; swallowing; very low birth weight infant

向作者/读者索取更多资源

OBJECTIVE. Preterm infants with bronchopulmonary dysplasia often demonstrate sucking difficulties. The aim of this study was to determine whether the severity of bronchopulmonary dysplasia affects not only coordination among suck-swallow respiration but also sucking endurance and performance itself. PATIENTS AND METHODS. Twenty very low birth weight infants were studied. Infants with anomalies or intraventricular hemorrhage were excluded from the evaluation. Subjects were divided into 3 groups: no bronchopulmonary dysplasia ( 7 infants), bronchopulmonary dysplasia without home oxygen therapy ( 7 infants), and bronchopulmonary dysplasia with home oxygen therapy (6 infants). In addition to sucking efficiency, pressure, frequency, duration, and duration of sucking burst, length of deglutition apnea, number of swallows per burst, and respiratory rate were also measured during bottle-feeding at 40 weeks' postmenstrual age. In addition, PCO2 and oxygen saturation were measured at rest and during bottle-feeding. RESULTS. Infants with severe bronchopulmonary dysplasia demonstrated not only the lowest sucking pressure and sucking frequency, shortest sucking burst duration, and lowest feeding efficiency but also the lowest frequency of swallows during the run and the longest deglutition apnea. The respiratory rate was highest, and the decrease in oxygen saturation was largest, in infants with severe bronchopulmonary dysplasia. CONCLUSIONS. Feeding problems depend on the severity of bronchopulmonary dysplasia. Infants with bronchopulmonary dysplasia demonstrated not only poor feeding coordination but also poor feeding endurance and performance.

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

4.7
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