3.9 Article

Neonatal Bacteremia and Retinopathy of Prematurity The ELGAN Study

期刊

ARCHIVES OF OPHTHALMOLOGY
卷 129, 期 12, 页码 1555-1563

出版社

AMER MEDICAL ASSOC
DOI: 10.1001/archophthalmol.2011.319

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Institute of Neurological Diseases and Stroke [5U01NS040069-05]
  2. National Eye Institute [5R21EY019253-02]
  3. National Institute of Child Health and Human Development [5P30HD018655-28]
  4. Richard Saltonstall Charitable Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: To explore whether early or late and presumed or definite neonatal bacteremia are associated with an increased risk of severe retinopathy of prematurity (ROP). Methods: We evaluated 1059 infants born before week 28 of gestation for ROP. Infants were classified as having early (postnatal week 1) or late (weeks 2-4) definite (culture-proven) or presumed (antibiotics taken for >72 hours despite negative blood culture results) bacteremia. Severe ROP was defined as stage 3 to 5, zone 1, prethreshold/threshold, or plus disease. We used time-oriented risk models to adjust for confounders. Results: In univariable, but not multivariable, analysis, newborns with presumed early bacteremia were at increased risk for plus disease (odds ratio [OR], 1.7; 95% CI, 1.1-2.7), and those with definite early bacteremia were at increased risk for stage 3 to 5 disease (1.9; 1.1-3.2). Infants who had presumed or definite late bacteremia were at increased risk for all 4 indicators of severe ROP in univariable analysis. In multivariable analysis, newborns with presumed late bacteremia were at increased risk for prethreshold/threshold ROP (OR, 1.8; 95% CI, 1.02-3.2), and those with definite late bacteremia were at increased risk for prethreshold/threshold ROP (1.8; 1.1-2.9) and plus disease (1.8; 1.05-2.9). Conclusions: Definite late neonatal bacteremia seems to be an independent risk factor for prethreshold/threshold ROP and plus disease, and presumed late bacteremia seems to be related to prethreshold/threshold ROP.

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

3.9
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