The Journal of pediatrics · 2014
Minimizing the risk of preoperative brain injury in neonates with aortic arch obstruction.
СтатьяМногоцентровое исследованиеПоддержка NIH: внешняя программаПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Algra Selma O, Haas Felix, Poskitt Kenneth J, Groenendaal Floris, Schouten Antonius N J, Jansen Nicolaas J G, Azakie Anthony, Gandhi Sanjiv, Campbell Andrew, Miller Steven P, McQuillen Patrick S, de Vries Linda S
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: To determine whether prenatal diagnosis lowers the risk of preoperative brain injury by assessing differences in the incidence of preoperative brain injury across centers.
STUDY DESIGN: From 2 prospective cohorts of newborns with complex congenital heart disease studied by preoperative cerebral magnetic resonance imaging, one cohort from the University Medical Center Utrecht (UMCU) and a combined cohort from the University of California San Francisco (UCSF) and University of British Columbia (UBC), patients with aortic arch obstruction were selected and their imaging and clinical course reviewed.
RESULTS: Birth characteristics were comparable between UMCU (n = 33) and UCSF/UBC (n = 54). Patients had a hypoplastic aortic arch with either coarctation/interruption or hypoplastic left heart syndrome. In subjects with prenatal diagnosis, there was a significant difference in the prevalence of white matter injury (WMI) between centers (11 of 22 [50%] at UMCU vs 4 of 30 [13%] at UCSF/UBC; P < .01). Prenatal diagnosis was protective for WMI at UCSF/UBC (13% prenatal diagnoses vs 50% postnatal diagnoses; P < .01), but not at UMCU (50% vs 46%, respectively; P > .99). Differences in clinical practice between prenatally diagnosed subjects at UMCU vs UCSF/UBC included older age at surgery, less time spent in the intensive care unit, greater use of diuretics, less use of total parenteral nutrition (P < .01), and a greater incidence of infections (P = .01). In patients diagnosed postnatally, the prevalence of WMI was similar in the 2 centers (46% at UMCU vs 50% at UCSF/UBC; P > .99). Stroke prevalence was similar in the 2 centers regardless of prenatal diagnosis (prenatal diagnosis: 4.5% at Utrecht vs 6.7% at UCSF/UBC, P = .75; postnatal diagnosis: 9.1% vs 13%, respectively, P > .99).
CONCLUSION: Prenatal diagnosis can be protective for WMI, but this protection may be dependent on specific clinical management practices that differ across centers.
STUDY DESIGN: From 2 prospective cohorts of newborns with complex congenital heart disease studied by preoperative cerebral magnetic resonance imaging, one cohort from the University Medical Center Utrecht (UMCU) and a combined cohort from the University of California San Francisco (UCSF) and University of British Columbia (UBC), patients with aortic arch obstruction were selected and their imaging and clinical course reviewed.
RESULTS: Birth characteristics were comparable between UMCU (n = 33) and UCSF/UBC (n = 54). Patients had a hypoplastic aortic arch with either coarctation/interruption or hypoplastic left heart syndrome. In subjects with prenatal diagnosis, there was a significant difference in the prevalence of white matter injury (WMI) between centers (11 of 22 [50%] at UMCU vs 4 of 30 [13%] at UCSF/UBC; P < .01). Prenatal diagnosis was protective for WMI at UCSF/UBC (13% prenatal diagnoses vs 50% postnatal diagnoses; P < .01), but not at UMCU (50% vs 46%, respectively; P > .99). Differences in clinical practice between prenatally diagnosed subjects at UMCU vs UCSF/UBC included older age at surgery, less time spent in the intensive care unit, greater use of diuretics, less use of total parenteral nutrition (P < .01), and a greater incidence of infections (P = .01). In patients diagnosed postnatally, the prevalence of WMI was similar in the 2 centers (46% at UMCU vs 50% at UCSF/UBC; P > .99). Stroke prevalence was similar in the 2 centers regardless of prenatal diagnosis (prenatal diagnosis: 4.5% at Utrecht vs 6.7% at UCSF/UBC, P = .75; postnatal diagnosis: 9.1% vs 13%, respectively, P > .99).
CONCLUSION: Prenatal diagnosis can be protective for WMI, but this protection may be dependent on specific clinical management practices that differ across centers.