4.7 Article

Cardiovascular risk factors at age 30 following pre-term birth

期刊

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF EPIDEMIOLOGY
卷 36, 期 4, 页码 907-915

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/ije/dym067

关键词

pre-term birth; birth weight; developmental origins of adult disease; cardiovascular risk; long-term follow-up

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background Recent epidemiological evidence has shown increased rates of cardiovascular mortality and associated risk factors in those born small. However, scarce information exists concerning cardiovascular risk factors in adulthood following pre-term birth, or distinguishing the relative contributions of length of gestation and fetal growth to small size at birth. Methods Prospective follow-up of 458 30-year-olds whose mothers took part in a randomized controlled trial of antenatal betamethasone for the prevention of neonatal respiratory distress syndrome (147 born at term, 311 born pre-term). Follow-up assessments included anthropometry, blood pressure, blood lipids, early morning cortisol levels and 75 g oral glucose tolerance test. Results Gestational age at birth, pre-term birth, and birth weight z-score were not associated with serum cholesterol, triglyceride or cortisol at age 30 (P > 0. 1 for all). However, pre-term birth was associated with increased systolic blood pressure (3.5 mmHg, 95% CI 0.9-6.1 mmHg, P = 0.009) and insulin resistance at age 30 [Log (Insulin area under the curve) = 0.17, 95% CI 0.05-0.28, P=0.006]. Low gestational age at birth was also associated with these outcomes, whereas birth weight, adjusted for gestational age, was not. Conclusions Adults who were born moderately pre-term have increased blood pressure and insulin resistance at 30 years of age. Pre-term birth rather than poor fetal growth is the major determinant of this association. As both the incidence of pre-term birth and survival amongst those born pre-term are increasing, this group may contribute an increasing proportion to overall cardiovascular disease burden.

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