Follow-up recommendations for the late preterm infant

Reymundo, M. García; Suazo, José; Aguilar, Marco; Faura, Francisco Javier Soriano; Galiana, Gemma Ginovart; Peinador, Yolanda Martín; Moya, A. Jiménez; Guasch, X. Demestre

doi:10.1016/j.anpede.2019.01.007

Cited by 6 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 34 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The repercussions of premature birth are perceived in the prevalence of delays and sequelae in global development of the individuals, even those born a few weeks before time (Reymundo et al, 2019, Su et al, 2017, especially when compared to full term newborns (Pereira-Cerro et al, 2019). The complications caused by early delivery correspond to the main causes of mortality and morbidity in children up to five years of age (Morales-Luengo et al, 2021), exerting significant impacts on the individuals, their family and society.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Development of premature children and the influence of sociodemographic factors on them: A cross-sectional study

Cavaggioni,

Benincasa

2024

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The objective of this study is to describe and correlate the development areas of premature children and to verify the influence of sociodemographic factors. This is a cross-sectional study with a quantitative approach, conducted with 79 premature children aged from 15 days to 42 months old. The sociodemographic questionnaire and the Bayley III Scale were used. The participants’ performance fell within the expected parameters in the weighted and composite score and percentile in all the domains evaluated. However, nearly 39% did not achieve full acquisition in sensory processing and 50.6% presented at least one statistically significant discrepancy when comparing two development areas. The analysis performed and the set of results obtained were considered relevant for constituting a risk indicator for childhood development that can go unnoticed in healthy preterm infants, hindering early intervention and leaving them vulnerable to difficulties throughout life.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Development of premature children and the influence of sociodemographic factors on them: A cross-sectional study

Cavaggioni,

Benincasa

2024

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…First of all, preterm births in low-and middle-income countries are 2.8 million per year, and of these late preterm infants constitute 84% [1]; therefore, late preterm infants represent 8% of all births [2]. Additionally, when comparing the birth rates of preterm infants, the birth rate of the other groups of premature infants (moderate, very premature, and extreme) has remained relatively constant for the past two decades, ranging from 1.8% to 2.0% [3]; conversely, late preterm infants (34 -36 weeks) are the fastest growing population and represent more than 70% of all preterm births [4]; similarly, they account for 12.5% of all births in the United States [5].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Comparison between Late Preterm and Term Infants with Respiratory Distress Syndrome, Early-Onset Sepsis, and Neonatal Jaundice in Ecuadorian Newborns

Molina

2024

OJPed

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: To examine the differences in prevalence of respiratory distress syndrome, early-onset sepsis and jaundice, between late preterm infants versus term infants in Ecuadorian newborns. Methods: Study design: Epidemiological, observational, and cross-sectional, with two cohorts of patients. Settings: IESS Quito Sur Hospital at Quito, Ecuador, from February to April of 2020. Participants: This study included 204 newborns, 102 preterm infants, 102 term infants. Results: There are significant differences between late preterm infants and term infants, with a p-value of 0.000 in the prevalence of early sepsis, 70.59% vs. 35.29%. In respiratory distress syndrome between late and term premature infants, significant differences were observed with a p-value of 0.000, the proportion being 55.58% vs. 24.51% respectively. The prevalence of jaundice is higher in term infants with a p value of 0.002, 72.55%, versus 51.96% in late preterm infants, and the mean value of bilirubins in mg/dL was higher in term infants 14.32 versus 12.33 in late preterm infants; this difference is statistically significant with a p value of 0.004. Admission to the NICU is more frequent in late preterm infants with a p-value of 0.000, being 42.16% for late preterm infants vs. 7.84% in term infants; the mean of the hospital days with p-value 0.005, was higher in late preterm infants 4.97 days vs. 3.55 days for term newborns. Conclusion: Due to the conditions of their immaturity, late preterm infants are 2.86 times more likely to present early sepsis than full-term newborns. It is shown that late preterm infants are 2.69 times more likely to have respiratory distress syndrome compared to term infants, therefore, late preterm infants have a longer hospital stay of 4.97 days versus 3.55 days in term infants. Jaundice and mean bilirubin levels are higher in term infants due to blood group incompatibility and How to cite this paper: Molina, T.A.

show abstract

“…It is known that the incidence of learning difficulties and behavioural problems varies between 5% and 15% depending on the specific disorder (Boyle et al, 2011; Chan, Leong, Malouf, & Quigley, 2016) being higher in those children with biological risk factors such as prematurity (Allotey et al, 2018; Huddy, Johnson, & Hope, 2001; Johnson et al, 2015; Morse, Zheng, Tang, & Roth, 2009). Late preterm infants (LPIs), born between 34 0/7 and 36 6/7 weeks of gestation, are the most prevalent group of preterm, accounting for approximately 70% of preterm births (García Reymundo et al, 2019; Raju, 2017).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In fact, the recommendation of scientific associations of several countries is to evaluate neurodevelopment during infancy with a developmental screening test. In the United States, the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) recommended developmental screening at 9, 18 and 30 months of age (Hagan, Shaw, & Duncan, 2017; Richerson et al, 2019) while in European countries at least before or around 2 years of age as in England (NICE guideline, 2017) and Spain, where the policies of the Spanish Society of Neonatology group SEN34–36 recommend screening in LPIs at 2 years and also follow‐up at 48 months (García Reymundo et al, 2019). The updated clinical report of the AAP recommends special attention to surveillance and administration of a formal screening test at the 4‐ or 5‐year visit when developmental risks, concerns or problems occur, for the risk of emerging problems in development, being this age the last point for the detection of subtle delays that can benefit from intervention.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Predictive value of the Ages and Stages Questionnaire® for school performance and school intervention in late preterm‐ and term‐born children

Martínez-Nadal

Armijo

et al. 2020

Child

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: The new health supervision guidelines emphasize the importance of surveillance or a formal developmental screening test at 4 years, one of the most used tests is Ages & Stages Questionnaire. Nevertheless, there is still not enough evidence whether these tools will be useful to predict future school performance (SP). Objectives: The objectives of this study were to evaluate the Ages & Stages Questionnaire 3rd edition 48-month interval (ASQ3-48) translated to Spanish for predicting the need for school intervention (SI) and poor SP at 8-9 years of age, in late preterm infants (LPIs) and term-born infants (Terms) and to compare the prevalence of SI and poor SP in the two groups. Methods: Data were collected from a cohort of 75 LPIs and 58 Terms assessed with ASQ3-48 and with a further assessment of academic results at 8-9 years, through a standardized school test of the Education Department of Catalonia. SI data were obtained through a parent report. Area under the curve (AUC), sensitivity, specificity and predictive values were calculated, and logistic regression analysis was used. Results: The prevalence of poor SP was 12.8%, without statistically significant differences between LPIs and Terms. LPIs had higher SI than Terms (29.3% vs. 10.3%, P = 0.001). AUC for poor SP was 0.73 and for receiving SI was 0.56 without differences between the two groups. The sensitivity of the ASQ3-48 for poor SP was 41%, for specificity 92%, and for receiving SI 14% and 89%, respectively. Poor SP was related to having positive screening in the ASQ3-48 (OR 6.5 [95% CI, 1.9-22.2]) while having received SI was related to late prematurity (OR 3.6 [95% CI, 1.3-9.6]). Conclusions: The ASQ3-48 shows acceptable predictive properties for poor SP but not for receiving SI. No differences were found in SP between LPI and Term cohorts, but LPIs are likelier to require SI.

show abstract

Follow-up recommendations for the late preterm infant

Cited by 6 publications

References 34 publications

Development of premature children and the influence of sociodemographic factors on them: A cross-sectional study

Development of premature children and the influence of sociodemographic factors on them: A cross-sectional study

A Comparison between Late Preterm and Term Infants with Respiratory Distress Syndrome, Early-Onset Sepsis, and Neonatal Jaundice in Ecuadorian Newborns

Predictive value of the Ages and Stages Questionnaire® for school performance and school intervention in late preterm‐ and term‐born children

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About