4.2 Article Proceedings Paper

Maternal hypertensive disorders are an independent risk factor for the development of necrotizing enterocolitis in very low birth weight infants

期刊

FETAL DIAGNOSIS AND THERAPY
卷 18, 期 6, 页码 404-407

出版社

KARGER
DOI: 10.1159/000073132

关键词

necrotizing enterocolitis; very low birth weight; prematurity; maternal hypertension

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: The purpose of this study was to compare complications and outcome of preterm neonates weighing less than or equal to1,500 g who developed necrotizing enterocolitis (NEC) to neonates without NEC. Study Design: During January, 1995 to December, 1998, 211 live preterm neonates were born with birth weight less than or equal to1,500 g. A cross sectional prospective study was designed and two groups were defined: 17 neonates who developed NEC and 194 without NEC. Multiple logistic regression analysis was performed to determine independent risk factors for the development of NEC. Results: The prevalence of NEC was 8% (17/211). The following complications were found to be significantly higher among mothers of neonates with NEC: mild pre-eclampsia (11.8 vs. 2.6%, p = 0.04); severe pre-eclampsia (35.5 vs. 12.9%, p = 0.01); chronic hypertension (29.4 vs. 5.7%, p < 0.001) and low birth weight (968 +/- 233 vs. 1,123 +/- 257 g, p = 0.02). In contrast, mean maternal age, mean gestational age at delivery and parity were not significantly different between the groups. A multivariate analysis including the following factors: maternal hypertensive disorders, pre-gestational diabetes mellitus, birth weight and gestational age at delivery, found only maternal hypertensive disorders to be independent risk factors for NEC (OR = 5.21, 95% CI 1.64-16.58). Conclusions: Maternal hypertension is an independent risk factor for the development of NEC in preterm neonates weighing <1,500 g. Thus, maternal vascular disorders may play an important role in the pathophysiology of NEC. Copyright (C) 2003 S. Karger AG, Basel.

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