有核红细胞作为预测早产儿自发性肠穿孔的潜在生物标志物

Q4 Medicine
M. O’Neill, Roia Katebian, Mollie Shutter, A. Wozniak, P. Dechristopher, L. Glynn, M. Weiss, J. Muraskas
{"title":"有核红细胞作为预测早产儿自发性肠穿孔的潜在生物标志物","authors":"M. O’Neill, Roia Katebian, Mollie Shutter, A. Wozniak, P. Dechristopher, L. Glynn, M. Weiss, J. Muraskas","doi":"10.47338/jns.v12.1159","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: The specific etiology of spontaneous intestinal perforation (SIP) and necrotizing enterocolitis (NEC) remains elusive. Both can present acutely without antecedent signs and can be difficult to differentiate. Neonatal nucleated red blood cell (NRBC) counts are part of the routine admission and serial CBCs drawn on premature neonates. Elevated NRBC counts could represent relative intrauterine hypoxemia, a possible risk factor for the development of SIP or NEC.\nMethods: We compared premature neonates with SIP to premature neonates with NEC and controls, matched gestational age (GA) and birth weight (BW). Kruskal-Wallis, Chi-Square, or Fisher's exact tests and univariate and multivariate nominal logistic regression models were used to estimate the association of baseline NRBC. Median times to SIP and NEC were calculated using the Kaplan-Meier method. All analyses were performed with SAS 9.4.\nResults: Male sex (72.5%), lower GA [Median (Q1, Q3): 25.1 (23.8, 28)], and lower BW [Median (Q1, Q3): 690 g (585, 1072)] had the highest incidence of SIP compared to NEC or controls. Increased baseline NRBC was associated with lower odds of developing NEC compared to controls [Median (Q1, Q3): 9 (5, 29) vs 19 (10, 51); OR (CI) 0.70 (0.55, 0.89), p-value = 0.0033]. Increased baseline NRBC was associated with higher odds of developing SIP compared to NEC [Median (Q1, Q3): 9 (5, 29) vs 19 (10, 51); OR (CI) 1.61 (1.18, 2.20) p-value = 0.0027]. There were no significant differences between intrauterine growth restriction (IUGR), maternal hypertension, chorioamnionitis, multiple births, or depressed APGAR scores in all three groups. NRBC for SIP neonates remained significantly higher at the day of life (DOL) 1-3 compared to other groups [Median (Q1, Q3): 23 (6, 93), p-value = 0.0020]. The percentage of patients with NRBC >4, remained elevated for patients with SIP as late as week three (p = 0.0023).\nConclusion: ELBW, male sex, and elevated baseline NRBC were significantly associated with the risk of developing SIP compared to NEC or controls. NRBC remained significantly elevated on DOL 1-3, compared to NEC or controls. Between the groups, there were no significant differences in perinatal stressors.","PeriodicalId":34201,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Neonatal Surgery","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Nucleated red blood cells as a potential biomarker for predicting spontaneous intestinal perforation in premature infants\",\"authors\":\"M. O’Neill, Roia Katebian, Mollie Shutter, A. Wozniak, P. Dechristopher, L. Glynn, M. Weiss, J. Muraskas\",\"doi\":\"10.47338/jns.v12.1159\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Background: The specific etiology of spontaneous intestinal perforation (SIP) and necrotizing enterocolitis (NEC) remains elusive. Both can present acutely without antecedent signs and can be difficult to differentiate. Neonatal nucleated red blood cell (NRBC) counts are part of the routine admission and serial CBCs drawn on premature neonates. Elevated NRBC counts could represent relative intrauterine hypoxemia, a possible risk factor for the development of SIP or NEC.\\nMethods: We compared premature neonates with SIP to premature neonates with NEC and controls, matched gestational age (GA) and birth weight (BW). Kruskal-Wallis, Chi-Square, or Fisher's exact tests and univariate and multivariate nominal logistic regression models were used to estimate the association of baseline NRBC. Median times to SIP and NEC were calculated using the Kaplan-Meier method. All analyses were performed with SAS 9.4.\\nResults: Male sex (72.5%), lower GA [Median (Q1, Q3): 25.1 (23.8, 28)], and lower BW [Median (Q1, Q3): 690 g (585, 1072)] had the highest incidence of SIP compared to NEC or controls. Increased baseline NRBC was associated with lower odds of developing NEC compared to controls [Median (Q1, Q3): 9 (5, 29) vs 19 (10, 51); OR (CI) 0.70 (0.55, 0.89), p-value = 0.0033]. Increased baseline NRBC was associated with higher odds of developing SIP compared to NEC [Median (Q1, Q3): 9 (5, 29) vs 19 (10, 51); OR (CI) 1.61 (1.18, 2.20) p-value = 0.0027]. There were no significant differences between intrauterine growth restriction (IUGR), maternal hypertension, chorioamnionitis, multiple births, or depressed APGAR scores in all three groups. NRBC for SIP neonates remained significantly higher at the day of life (DOL) 1-3 compared to other groups [Median (Q1, Q3): 23 (6, 93), p-value = 0.0020]. The percentage of patients with NRBC >4, remained elevated for patients with SIP as late as week three (p = 0.0023).\\nConclusion: ELBW, male sex, and elevated baseline NRBC were significantly associated with the risk of developing SIP compared to NEC or controls. NRBC remained significantly elevated on DOL 1-3, compared to NEC or controls. Between the groups, there were no significant differences in perinatal stressors.\",\"PeriodicalId\":34201,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Neonatal Surgery\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-01-31\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Neonatal Surgery\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.47338/jns.v12.1159\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"Medicine\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Neonatal Surgery","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.47338/jns.v12.1159","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:自发性肠穿孔(SIP)和坏死性小肠结肠炎(NEC)的具体病因尚不明确。两者都可以在没有先前迹象的情况下急性出现,并且很难区分。新生儿有核红细胞(NRBC)计数是早产儿常规入院和连续CBC的一部分。NRBC计数升高可能代表相对宫内低氧血症,这可能是发生SIP或NEC的危险因素。方法:我们比较了患有SIP的早产儿与患有NEC的早产儿以及对照组、匹配胎龄(GA)和出生体重(BW)。Kruskal-Wallis、Chi Square或Fisher精确检验以及单变量和多变量标称逻辑回归模型用于估计基线NRBC的相关性。使用Kaplan-Meier方法计算SIP和NEC的中位时间。所有分析均采用SAS进行。9.4.结果:与NEC或对照组相比,男性(72.5%)、较低GA[中位数(Q1,Q3):25.1(23.8,28)]和较低BW[中位数(Q1Q3):690 g(5851072)]的SIP发生率最高。与对照组相比,基线NRBC增加与发生NEC的几率较低相关[中位数(Q1,Q3):9(5,29)vs 19(10,51);OR(CI)0.70(0.55,0.89),p值=0.0033]。与NEC相比,基线NR BC增加与发生SIP的几率较高相关[中位数三组中宫内生长受限(IUGR)、母体高血压、绒毛膜羊膜炎、多胞胎或APGAR评分下降之间的差异。与其他组相比,SIP新生儿在出生日(DOL)1-3的NRBC仍显著升高[中位数(Q1,Q3):23(6,93),p值=0.0020]。SIP患者NRBC>4的患者百分比在第三周仍升高(p=0.0023)。结论:ELBW,男性,与NEC或对照组相比,基线NRBC升高与发展为SIP的风险显著相关。与NEC或对照组相比,DOL 1-3的NRBC仍显著升高。两组之间围产期压力源没有显著差异。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Nucleated red blood cells as a potential biomarker for predicting spontaneous intestinal perforation in premature infants
Background: The specific etiology of spontaneous intestinal perforation (SIP) and necrotizing enterocolitis (NEC) remains elusive. Both can present acutely without antecedent signs and can be difficult to differentiate. Neonatal nucleated red blood cell (NRBC) counts are part of the routine admission and serial CBCs drawn on premature neonates. Elevated NRBC counts could represent relative intrauterine hypoxemia, a possible risk factor for the development of SIP or NEC. Methods: We compared premature neonates with SIP to premature neonates with NEC and controls, matched gestational age (GA) and birth weight (BW). Kruskal-Wallis, Chi-Square, or Fisher's exact tests and univariate and multivariate nominal logistic regression models were used to estimate the association of baseline NRBC. Median times to SIP and NEC were calculated using the Kaplan-Meier method. All analyses were performed with SAS 9.4. Results: Male sex (72.5%), lower GA [Median (Q1, Q3): 25.1 (23.8, 28)], and lower BW [Median (Q1, Q3): 690 g (585, 1072)] had the highest incidence of SIP compared to NEC or controls. Increased baseline NRBC was associated with lower odds of developing NEC compared to controls [Median (Q1, Q3): 9 (5, 29) vs 19 (10, 51); OR (CI) 0.70 (0.55, 0.89), p-value = 0.0033]. Increased baseline NRBC was associated with higher odds of developing SIP compared to NEC [Median (Q1, Q3): 9 (5, 29) vs 19 (10, 51); OR (CI) 1.61 (1.18, 2.20) p-value = 0.0027]. There were no significant differences between intrauterine growth restriction (IUGR), maternal hypertension, chorioamnionitis, multiple births, or depressed APGAR scores in all three groups. NRBC for SIP neonates remained significantly higher at the day of life (DOL) 1-3 compared to other groups [Median (Q1, Q3): 23 (6, 93), p-value = 0.0020]. The percentage of patients with NRBC >4, remained elevated for patients with SIP as late as week three (p = 0.0023). Conclusion: ELBW, male sex, and elevated baseline NRBC were significantly associated with the risk of developing SIP compared to NEC or controls. NRBC remained significantly elevated on DOL 1-3, compared to NEC or controls. Between the groups, there were no significant differences in perinatal stressors.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Neonatal Surgery
Journal of Neonatal Surgery Medicine-Surgery
CiteScore
0.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
29
审稿时长
6 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信