4.3 Article

Impact of histological chorioamnionitis, funisitis and clinical chorioamnionitis on neurodevelopmental outcome of preterm infants

期刊

EARLY HUMAN DEVELOPMENT
卷 87, 期 4, 页码 253-257

出版社

ELSEVIER IRELAND LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.earlhumdev.2011.01.024

关键词

Chorioamnionitis; Funisitis; Neurodevelopmental outcome; Premature infant; Cerebral palsy; Intraventricular hemorrhage; Periventricular leukomalacia

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: The role of chorioamnionitis in neurodevelopment of preterm infants is not fully understood. Aim: To examine the association between different indicators of intrauterine inflammation (clinical chorioamnionitis, histological chorioamnionitis and funisitis) and neurodevelopmental impairment in very preterm infants. Methods: Preterm infants with a birth weight of < 1500 g or a gestational age of < 32 weeks were included. Follow-up evaluation up to 2 years of age consisted of neurological examination, neurodevelopmental assessment and visual and audiologic tests. Outcome data were compared between the chorioamnionitis and the control groups, controlling for gestational age, birth weight and Apgar score at 5 min. Results: One hundred seventy-seven patients comprised the study population (mean gestational age 29 +/- 2 weeks, mean birth weight 1167 +/- 344 g). Histological chorioamnionitis was present in 49% of placentas, whereas funisitis was observed in 25%. In 57% cases clinical maternal chorioamnionitis was suspected. Follow-up was available for 130 (82%) patients. Infants with funisitis, compared with controls, had a significantly higher incidence of moderate to severe disability (18% vs 5%, OR 4.07; 95% CI 1.10-15.09). Conclusion: The results of this study suggest that, unlike a broad definition of histological chorioamnionitis including inflammation of maternal or fetal placental tissues, funisitis may entail a higher risk of moderate to severe disability at 2 years of age in preterm infants. (C) 2011 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.

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

4.3
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