Prerpints.org logo
Preprint
Article

Early Extra-Uterine Growth Restriction in Very Low Birth Weight Neonates with Normal or Mildly Abnormal Brain MRI: Effects on 2–3 Years Neurodevelopmental Outcome

Altmetrics

Downloads

120

Views

51

Comments

0

A peer-reviewed article of this preprint also exists.

Submitted:

01 January 2024

Posted:

04 January 2024

You are already at the latest version

Alerts
Abstract
Extrauterine growth restriction (EUGR) is a common complication and a known risk factor for impaired development in very low birth weight (VLBW) preterms. We report a population of 288 patients with no or with low grade MRI lesions scanned at term equivalent age (TEA) born between 2012 and 2018. Griffiths mental development scale II (GMDS II) at 2 and 3 years, preterm complications and weight growth were retrospectively analysed. EUGR was defined for weigth z-score ˂10th percentile at TEA, 6 and 12 months of correct age or as z-score decreased by 1-point SDS from birth to TEA and from TEA to 6 months. Multivariate analysis showed that a higher weight z-score at 6 months is protective for global developmental quotient (DQ) at 2 years (OR 0.74; CI 95% 0.59-0.93; p=0,01). EUGR at 6 months was associated with worse locomotor, personal-social, language and performance DQ at 2 years and worse language and practical reasoning DQ at 3 years. In conclusion a worse weight z-score at 6 months of age seems to be an independent risk factor for significantly reduced GMDS in many areas. These results suggest to better invest on post-discharge nutritional, optimizing family nutritional education.
Keywords: 
Subject: Medicine and Pharmacology  -   Pediatrics, Perinatology and Child Health

1. Introduction

The survival rate in preterm babies, in particular for very low birth weight (VLBW, with birth weight <1500g) has drastically increased over the years [1,2,3]. However, the incidence of neurological sequelae like cerebral palsy, cognitive impairment and developmental co-ordination disorder has remained high due to increased survival at the lower gestational age [4,5,6]. Neurodevelopment can be affected by several neonatal complications in preterm babies.
Extrauterine growth restriction (EUGR) is a common complication in preterm infants [7] and is commonly considered a risk factor for poor development. It is defined as "cross-sectional" when the patient weights below a specific cut-off at a specific time-point [8] or “longitudinal” when there’s a growth deficit from birth concerning another defined time-point [9,10]. Its incidence varies from 13% to 97% in different populations and according to relative definitions [11]. In addition, Ehrenkranz RA et al. observed an increase on incidence of cerebral palsy, abnormal mental development index and psychomotor development index, and neurodevelopment impairment in patients with EUGR during NICU hospitalization in a large population of ELBW infants [12]. Furthermore, Guellec I et al. demonstrates an increased risk of cerebral palsy in "longitudinal" EUGR between birth and 6 months in a large population of preterms from the EPIPAGE study cohort [13]. Therefore, despite the influence of EUGR in neurodevelopment is widely shared, there is no univocal agreement on which definition and time-point better predict neurological outcome [10]. Furthermore, the most important studies do not consider MRI which is the gold standard to define the diagnosis including minor brain lesions often missed at ultrasound [14,15].
Major brain lesions like cystic periventricular leukomalacia (PVL), germinal matrix-intraventricular hemorrhage (GMH-IVH) complicated by periventricular hemorrhagic venous infraction (PVHI) or post-hemorrhagic ventricular distension (PHVD) and massive cerebellar hemorrhage (CBH) are strongly associated with important neurological impairment [16,17,18,19,20,21,22, 23,24]. The role of minor lesions like low grade GMH-IVH, punctate white matter lesions (PWML) and micro CBH is still debated although some recent works seems to be associated with an impaired neurological development [25,26,27].
Furthermore, other neonatal complications can play a role in developing neurological sequelae in preterm babies, in particular hypoxia at birth [28], neonatal sepsis [29], necrotizing enterocolitis (NEC) [30,31], bronchopulmonary dysplasia [32,33,34], surgical procedures [35,36].
The primary aim of our study is to define if EUGR can be an independent prognostic factor for neurological outcome in VLBW preterm with negative or minor brain lesions at MRI. Furthermore, the secondary aim is to identify if there is a more sensitive time-point EUGR diagnosis more sensitive to better predict neurological outcomes.

2. Materials and Methods

All VLBW infants consecutively admitted to Neonatal Intensive Care Unit of IRCSS Giannina Gaslini Institute who underwent routine brain MRI at term-equivalent age from January 2012 to December 2018 were selected for the study. As per standard internal protocol, MRI scans were performed at term-equivalent age (TEA, between 38 and 42 weeks post menstrual age) as a part of the screening program for identification of prematurity-related lesions.“Feed and wrap” technique was used to perform the MRI [37]. The need for sedation (oral midazolam, 0,1 mg/kg) to prevent head motion was agreed with the neuro-radiologist case by case. Scans were performed with a 1.5 Tesla MR system (InteraAchieva 2.6; Philips, Best, The Netherlands) using a dedicated pediatric head/spine coil. Our institutional standard MRI protocol included 3 mm thick axial T2-weighted and T1-weighted images, coronal T2-weighted images, sagittal T1- weighted images, axial diffusion-weighted images (b value:1000 s/mm2) and axial SWI (susceptibility weighted imaging) that is the gold standard to identify hemosiderin and low-grade hemorrhage [38]. Patients with major brain lesions such as periventricular leukomalacia (PVL), periventricular hemorrhagic infarction (PVHI), post-hemorrhagic ventricular distention (PHVD) and massive-limited CBH [39] known to significantly affect neurological outcome were excluded or with congenital brain malformations were excluded from the present study. Patients with minor brain lesions such as low-grade GMH-IVH (I-II grade for Volpe’s Classification [20]), punctate white matter lesions (PWML), [26] or micro-CBH were included [21].
Demographic and clinical data of the enrolled patients were extracted from clinical charts. Collected data included: birth weight, gestational age, sex, mode of delivery, Apgar at 5th minute, diagnosis of neonatal complications (sepsis, NEC and BPD), need of major surgery, mother milk feeding at TEA. Neonatal sepsis was defined by the need for antibiotic therapy for clinical and laboratory findings suggesting blood infection. NEC was defined by clinical and imaging signs suggesting enterocolitis. BPD was defined by the need of any ventilatory support or O2 supplementation at 36 weeks. MRI data were collected and patients were divided into two groups: patients with normal MRI and patients with minor brain lesions, like those very mild hemorrhagic identified by Susceptibility Weighted Imaging [15,38,40].
Anthropometric data were collected by clinical charts of patients enrolled in our preterm follow-up service. During the hospital stay, weight was measured daily and after discharging it was collected at term-equivalent age (TEA), and 1, 3, 6, 9, and 12 months of correct age. We collected only weight at birth, at TEA, 6 and 12 months of corrected age. Z-scores of weight for age and sex were calculated for birth and TEA using INTERGROWTH-21strelatives charts for very preterm size at birth [41] and postnatal growth standard in preterm infants [42], while for 6 and 12 months of correct age, we used CDC Growth Charts, 2000 [43]. Patients who were lost in the follow-up phase or with incomplete anthropometric data were excluded from the present study.
The patients with birth weight z-score < 1,282 (<10° percentile) were considered small for gestational age (SGA). Extra-uterine growth restriction (EUGR) at TEA and 6 months was diagnosed by two different definitions: “cross-sectional” EUGR as a weight z-score < 1,282 (<10° percentile) and “longitudinal” EUGR as z-score decreased by 1-point SDS from birth to TEA and from TEA to 6 months [44]. A pathologic weight with z-score <1,282 (<10° percentile) was also defined as EUGR at 12 months of correct age.
The neurological development evaluation of patients was performed with Griffiths Mental Developmental Scales II (GMDS II) [45] at two years of corrected age and three years of chronological age. Patients lost in the follow-up phase were excluded from the study. Patients who did not perform only the 3-years assessment were included. These evaluations are part of routine follow-up service offered to all VLBW patients after discharge from the hospital. GMDS was administered by a 10-year experienced single operator blinded to MRI results. Raw numbers were converted into standardized development quotients (DQ). Total development quotients (DQ), relating to global development, were derived from the mean of the results of different areas of assessment: locomotor and gross motor skills (scale A); personal-social and adaptive behavior development (scale B); receptive/expressive language (scale C); fine motor function and hand-eye coordination (scale D); performance as precursors of reasoning and planning (scale E); practical reasoning (scale F, performed only at 3 years of age).Resulting values were used to evaluate the level of neurodevelopment: values below 70 define a developmental delay, values from 70 to 84 evidence borderline condition, and values above 84 are considered normal [45].
Descriptive statistics were generated for the whole cohort; data were expressed as the mean and standard deviation for continuous variables and absolute and relative frequencies for categorical variables. All collected demographic and clinical data were compared using the Chi-square or Fisher exact test and the Mann-Whitney U test for categorical and continuous variables. Univariate analysis determined the potential risk factors which were significantly associated with unsatisfactory scores in the GMDS (<85) at 2, and 3 years of CA. Logistic regression analysis was used for each variable, and odds ratios (ORs) were calculated with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). The absence of exposure to the factor or the variable that was less likely to be associated with the risk was used as a reference for each analysis. Multivariate analysis corrected for gestational age (GA) was then performed. The only variables that proved to be statistically or borderline significant in the univariate analysis (<0.08) were included in the model. The model which best fitted was based on the backward stepwise selection procedures, and each variable was removed if it did not contribute significantly. In the final model, a p-value of <0.05 was considered statistically significant, and all p-values were based on two-tailed tests. Statistical analysis was performed using the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences for Windows (SPSS Inc. Chicago, IL).
The studies involving human participants were reviewed and approved by Giannina Gaslini Hospital, Genoa, Italy. Written informed consent to participate in this study was provided by the participants' legal guardian/next of kin.

3. Results

3.1. Main population description

498 very low birth weights underwent brain MRIs from January 2012 to December 2018. Of these patients, 65 were excluded for severe brain lesions, 18 for incidental findings of brain malformations and congenital diseases, and 127 for incomplete follow-up or missing data.
The final population included 288 patients. GA mean was 28.9 + 2.1 weeks (range 23-34.6), with a mean birth weight of 1097+255g (z-score -0,449 + 1,09; range 435-1490g). 139 patients (48.3%) were male. The incidence of SGA was 21.5% (62 patients). 232 neonates were born by cesarean delivery (80.6%), mean Apgar score at 5 minutes was 8(range 2-10). About the major neonatal complications of preterm: incidence of sepsis was 37.5% (n 108), NEC was present in 30 patients (10.4%) of these 15 who underwent surgical treatment. A total of 36 patients (12.5%) underwent surgery before discharge (15 for NEC, 17 for patent ductus arteriosus, PDA). The MRI study at term age (TEA) showed that101 patients had low-grade lesions (35,1%). Of these 44 patients with low-grade IVH (15,3%), 47 had punctuate lesions of white matter (16.3%), 31 had micro-CBH (10,8%). At term age, only 17% (n 49) were fed by mother milk exclusively and 41% were fed only by formula milk. The mean weight at TEA was 2600 + 598g (range 1140-4180g), the mean z-score for weight was -1.407+1.415, and 50% (n=144) had “cross-sectional” EUGR. The incidence of “longitudinal” EUGR was 43.8% (n=126). At 6 months of age, the mean weight was 6.81+ 1.03 kg, z-score -1.24+1.29, the incidence of patients with “cross-sectional” EUGR was 46.2% (n=133), while the rate of "longitudinal" EUGR was 16,0% (n=46). At 12 months of age, the mean weight was 8.78+ 1.16 kg, z-score -1.36+1.25, the incidence of patients with “cross-sectional” EUGR was 48.3% (n=139). (Table 1)

3.2. Neurological outcome and statistical analysis

About the long-term neurological outcomes, Global DQ evaluated with Griffiths scale II was pathologic or borderline (<85) in 56 patients of 288 at 2 years of age (19,4%). Considering separately the different rating areas of the Griffiths II scale, incidence of pathologic or borderline score was 23,6% for locomotor, 23,2% for personal-social; 44,1% for hearing and language,13,2% for hand-eye coordination, 24,3% for performance. At 3 years of age, global DQ Griffiths scale was pathologic or borderline in 100 of 262 patients (26 patients were lost in the follow-up phase) with an incidence of 38,2%. Considering separately the different rating areas incidence of pathologic or borderline score was 31,7 % for locomotor, 33,2% for personal-social; 53,0% for hearing and language, 31,6% for hand-eye coordination, 48,1% for performance, 38,5% for practical reasoning (Table 2).
Considering the risk factors for worse neurological outcomes at 2 years, the univariate analysis showed that patients scoring below 85 on the Griffiths II scales had a lower weight z-score at 6 (-1,639 vs 1,140 p=0,03) and 12 months (-1,735 vs -1,264 p=0,03) than patients with normal results on the Griffiths assessment and the incidence of patients with “cross-sectional” EUGR at 6 months was higher even not statistically significant in patients with pathological or borderline global DQ at Griffiths (58,9 vs 43,5%; p=0,07). Furthermore, the incidence of surgical NEC appears to be higher in patients with pathological or borderline global DQ (10,7% vs 3,9%; p =0,08). Based on these data, multivariate analysis adjusted for gestational age showed that a higher z-score for weight at 6 months would be protective for global DQ deficit at 2 years of age (OR 0,74; CI 0,59-0,93; p=0,01) (Table 3).
The same analysis was performed separately for the different rating areas of the Griffiths II scale. Results of multivariate analysis are resumed in Table 4. Considering the locomotor area (Scale A) the multivariate analysis showed that “cross-sectional” EUGR at 6 months (OR 1.96; CI 95% 1.10-3.47; p=0.02), punctate white matter lesions (PWML) (OR 2,33; CI95% 1,15-4,71; p=0,02) and major surgery during NICU stay (OR 3.79; CI 95% 1.69-8.49; p=0.001) were a negative prognostic factor. For Personal-Social area (Scale B) “cross-sectional” EUGR at 6 months (OR 1,94; CI 95%; 1,12-3,37; p=0,02) and NEC (OR 2,6; CI 95% 1,14-5,92; p= 0,02) are the major risk factors. Considering the hearing and language areas (Scale C), multivariate analysis identified higher gestational age (OR 0,5; CI 95% 0,27-0,92; p=0,02) and higher birth weight z-scores (OR 0,31; CI 95% 0,12-0,81; p=0,02) as protective factors, while the presence of NEC (OR 2,48; CI 95% 1,07-5,71; p=0,03) and “cross-sectional” EUGR at 6 months (OR 1,87; CI 1,05-3,29; p= 0,02) were also confirmed as negative prognostic factors. NEC was also a negative prognostic factor (OR 3,98; CI1,66-9,55; p=0,002)for the assessment of hand-eye coordination (Scale D). Lastly, male sex(OR 2,01; CI 95% 1,13-3,57; p=0,02); major surgery (OR 4,07: CI 95% 1,78-9,33; p=0,001), white matter punctate lesions at MRI (OR 2,03; CI 95% 1,00-4,14; p=0,05), and “longitudinal” EUGR at 6 months (OR 2,10; CI 95% 1,03-4,30; p= 0,04) seemed to be negative prognostic factor relatively to the performance area (Scale E) (Table 4)
Regarding the neurological outcome at 3 years of age, the Griffiths II scale was applied only in 262 patients of the 288 because 26 patients were lost in the follow-up phase. The univariate analysis showed a major incidence of Griffiths score <85 in the male babies (60% vs 43,2%; p= 0,01), and patients with NEC (17% vs 7,4%; p=0,02), while normal Griffiths had a higher incidence in patients born by cesarean delivery (76% vs 85,2%; p=0,05). Based on these data, the multivariate analysis adjusted for gestational age showed that only male sex (OR 1,94; CI 95% 1,16-3,24; p=0,01) and NEC (OR 2,55; CI 95% 1,11-5,86; p=0,03) was independent negative prognostic factors for worse global DQ at 3 years. (Table 5)
Considering separately the areas of Griffith II at 3 years, multivariate analysis showed that the protective prognostic factors for locomotor area (Scale A) was higher gestational age at birth (OR 0,88; CI 95% 0,77-1; p=0,06) while male sex was a negative prognostic factor (OR 1,82; CI 95% 1,07-3,10; p=0,03). Male sex was also a negative prognostic factor (OR 2,18; CI 95% 1,28-3,72; p=0,004) for personal-social area (Scale B) while cesarean delivery seemed to be a protective factor (OR 0,47; CI 95% 0,25-0,91; p=0,02).About hearing and language area (Scale C)“cross-sectional” EUGR at 6 months (OR 1,63; CI 95% 0,99-2,68; p= 0,05) and male sex (OR1,88; CI 95% 1,14-3,10; p=0,01) seemed to be the only negative prognostic factors. Regarding hand-eye coordination (Scale D) and performance (Scale E) the major risk factors seemed to be male sex (OR 4,17; CI 95% 1,78-9,76; p=0,001 - OR 2,39; CI 95% 1,44-3,97; p=0,001 respectively)and NEC (OR 4,17; CI 95% 1,78-9,76; p=0,001 - OR 4,31; CI 95% 1,63-11,35; p=0,003 respectively). For practical reasoning (Scale F) only “longitudinal” EUGR at 6 months (OR 2,07; CI95% 1,02-4,17; p= 0,04) and NEC (OR 4,47; CI 95% 1,84-10,85; p=0,001) seems to be significative (Table 6).

4. Discussion

EUGR is already considered a risk factor for worse global mental development [7,8,9,10,11,12]. We showed that better weight z-score at 6 months is protective for pathologic-border line GMDS at 2 years of age (Table 3). “Cross-sectional” EUGR at 6 months seemed to be associated with a worse neurodevelopment for some areas of GMDS at 2 and 3 years in particular: 2y locomotor, 2y personal-social, 2-3y language (Table 4, Table 6). “Longitudinal” EUGR from TEA to 6 months of CA was associated with a worse GMDS in 2y performance and 3y practical reasoning (Table 4, Table 6). The 6 months’ time-point was not taken into consideration in recent existing studies, in particular Zozaya et al. that compared “longitudinal” and “cross-sectional” EUGR at 36 weeks of CA [8] or De Rose et al that compared 48 definitions of EUGR, 24 "cross-sectional" and 24 "longitudinal" at different time points from births to TEA [10]. Furthermore, the above mentioned studies didn’t consider MRI data as an influencing factor for outcome.
A result similar to ours was published by Guellec I at al. as part of the EPIPAGE study. They demonstrated an association between "longitudinal" EUGR from birth to 6 months of age and cerebral palsy at 5 years in patients born AGA and cognitive deficiency-school difficulties in SGA at 5-8 years even if not significantly [13]. This study too, although extremely cited didn’t consider lesions or no lesions studied with MRI to predict neurological follow-up.
Our results reinforce attention not only to EUGR but to post-discharge growth focusing again on the feeding problems of VLBW preterms. Indeed, although there are evidence-based recommendations on VLBW nutrition in hospitals [46], little is known about optimal nutrition after discharge and also the introduction of solid foods (referred to as weaning) guidelines.
Regarding post-discharge nutrition, in our center, we recommend mother milk feeding. Exclusive post-discharge breastfeeding is rarely possible in our preterm babies so the initial indication is to feed with unfortified mother milk by bottle for a hydric quotient of 160 up to 200 ml/kg per day. In the absence of breastmilk, a post-discharge formula is prescribed for an energy quotient of between 120 and 140 kcal/kg/day until TEA and 3000 g of weight are reached, then it is replaced with common formula milk for an energy quotient of between 110 and 130 kcal/kg/day. These intakes are adjusted and individualized based on weight growth in the last hospital weeks and the first few post-discharge weeks and depending on the presence of co-morbidities. Unfortunately, mother milk was available in 59% but only 17% were exclusively fed by mother milk at 40 weeks of CA in our population, a poor result similar to others [47]. There is a large consensus that mother milk represents the best choice due to its well-known positive effects on neurodevelopment and body composition [46,48,49,50,51]. The role of mother milk fortification and the choice of better formula milk after discharge is still controversial. As a matter of fact, two quite recent Cochrane meta-analysis did not provide evidence that fortification of mother milk after hospital discharge or use of post-discharge formula (enriched in protein, LCPUFA, and micronutrients) are able to affect differently growth rates and neurodevelopmental outcomes [52,53,54]. Furthermore, as regards nutrition in the immediate post-discharge period, the only intervention showing encouraging results is to support and educate families to promote mother milk feeding [47].
Weaning is likely to be crucial for infantile nutrition and neurodevelopment [55,56] although there is a wide variability in time of introduction, micronutrients supplementation and types of foods proposed center by center [57]. In our population weaning was started at 6 months of postnatal age (PA) according to ESPHGAN indications [58]. In literature, different timing for weaning was proposed mainly derived from observational studies [59,60,61]. The few randomized controlled trials (RCT) do not report significant differences in weight growth when weaning is started at 4 vs 6 months of correct age [62] or at 13 vs 17 weeks of age where an improvement in length at 12 months of age was the only achievement [63]. Only one recent RCT found that starting weaning in VLBW at 10-12 weeks of CA instead of 16 -18 weeks of CA had positive effects on weight z-score at 6 months [64]. None of these RCTs considered neurodevelopment as the primary outcome. The efficacy on the growth of this “early weaning policy” is still controversial with poor evidence as observed in different cohort studies [65,66] but it seems to be safe without increased risk of obesity [62, 67] and food allergy or atopic dermatitis [68]. A recent systematic review guided by the Italian Societies of Pediatrics (SIP), Neonatology (SIN), and Paediatric Gastroenterology, Hepatology and Nutrition (SIGENP) tried to draw up recommendations for weaning in preterm infants and recommended to start between 5 and 8 months of postnatal age consider the limit of 3 months of CA to ensure the acquisition of developmental skills [69]. Based on our data and what is reported in the literature, we speculate that an early weaning policy at about 3 months of correct age when developmental skills are acquired (i.e., between about 4 and 6 months of PA depending on GA) will be safe and could improve weight gain at 6 months and consequently the neurological outcome of VLBW patients.
Data about the type of food proposed in weaning in preterm are lacking so the guidelines used for term babies are those used for preterms too [58,70]. Interestingly Cochrane systematic review reports a decrease in risk of undernutrition and growth improvements when the family of term babies received adequate nutritional education although the effects on neurodevelopment remain uncertain [71]. A similar study was conducted in preterms families without convincing evidence although we can speculate that similar effects can be reached in preterm [72]. Proposing adequate nutritional education to families of preterm infants may improve the growth and neurodevelopment of these patients.
Lastly, other well-known risk factors like GA [4,5,6], male sex [73,74], NEC [30,31], and major surgeries [35,36] were identified and confirmed by our study as risk factors for worse GMDS in different areas. About MRI findings, in our population, PWML was confirmed to be a risk factor for worse GMDS, in particular for locomotor development (scale A) and performance (scale E) at 2 years, in agreement with previous findings [27,75].
The strengths of our study are the large population of VLBW studied up to 3 years of age and the comparisons between two groups, one with absolute no brain lesion (at MRI) and the other with minor lesions whose long term clinical significance remain not widely studied.

5. Conclusions

Our study confirms that extrauterine growth retardation affects neurological outcomes in preterm infants. EUGR diagnosed at 6 months of corrected age seems to have a major negative impact on many areas of neurological development, more than those deriving from minor brain lesions almost exclusively diagnosed with MRI. Only Periventricular White Matter Lesions show a significantly negative effect like EUGR although it was restricted to locomotor development and performance and, exclusively, at 2 years follow-up. At 3 years of age EUGR at 6 months maintains a negative effect on language and practical reasoning. We believe it is appropriate to focus more on post-discharge nutritional help, optimizing family nutritional education.

Supplementary Materials

Table 1: population features; Table 2: Griffith mental development scale II (GMDS) results at 2 and 3 years in the whole population for Global and sub-scales development quotient (DQ). Table 3: Univariate and Multivariate Analysis results for global development quotient at 2 years. Table 4: Multivariate Analysis for different Griffith Mental Development subscales at 2 years. Table 5: Univariate and Multivariate Analysis results for global development quotient at 3 years. Table 6: Multivariate Analysis for different Griffith Mental Development subscales at 3 years

Author Contributions

Dr. Massirio P: full access to all of the data in the study and takes responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis. Study concept and design. Screened all titles and abstracts. Study supervision. Drafted the initial manuscript, and reviewed and revised the manuscript. Dr. Battaglini M: full access to all of the data. Screened all titles and abstracts. Drafted the initialmanuscript, and reviewed and revised the manuscript. Dr. Irene B: full access to all of the data. Screened all titles and abstracts. Drafted the initialmanuscript, and reviewed and revised the manuscript. Dr. De Crescenzo S: full access to all of the data. Screened all titles and abstracts. Drafted the initialmanuscript, and reviewed and revised the manuscript. Dr. Calevo MG: Statistical analysis. Dr. Malova M: full access to all of the data. Screened all titles and abstracts. Revised the manuscript. Dr. Caruggi S: full access to all of the data. Screened all titles and abstracts. Revised the manuscript. Dr.Parodi A: full access to all of the data. Screened all titles and abstracts. Revised the manuscript. Dr. Preiti D: full access to all of the data. Screened all titles and abstracts. Revised the manuscript. Dr. Zoia A: full access to all of the data. Screened all titles and abstracts. Revised the manuscript. Dr. Uccella S: full access to all of the data. Screened all titles and abstracts. Revised the manuscript. Dr. Tortora D: full access to all of the data. Screened all titles and abstracts. Revised the manuscript. Dr. Severino M: full access to all of the data. Screened all titles and abstracts. Revised the manuscript. Prof. Rossi A: full access to all of the data. Screened all titles and abstracts. Revised the manuscript. Dr. Traggiai C: full access to all of the data. Screened all titles and abstracts. Revised the manuscript. Prof. Nobili L: full access to all of the data. Screened all titles and abstracts. Revised the manuscript. Prof. Striano P: Study supervision. Reviewed and revised the manuscript. Prof. Ramenghi LA: Study concept and design. Study supervision. Drafted the initial manuscript, and reviewed and revised the manuscript. All authors approved the final manuscript as submitted and agree to be accountable for all aspects of the work.

Funding

This research received no external funding

Institutional Review Board Statement

This retrospective observational study was approved by the local ethics committee of the IRCCS Istituto Giannina Gaslini, Genoa, Italy.

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent that included statements about the significance and limitations of MRI at TEA was obtained in all cases.

Data Availability Statement

We encourage all authors of articles published in MDPI journals to share their research data. In this section, please provide details regarding where data supporting reported results can be found, including links to publicly archived datasets analyzed or generated during the study. Where no new data were created, or where data is unavailable due to privacy or ethical restrictions, a statement is still required. Suggested Data Availability Statements are available in section “MDPI Research Data Policies” at https://www.mdpi.com/ethics.

Acknowledgments

Declared none.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. World Health Organisation, et al. Born too soon: the global action report on preterm birth. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2012.
  2. Behrman RE, Babson GS, Lessel R. Fetal and neonatal mortality in white middle class infants: mortality risks by gestational age and weight. Am J Dis Child 1971; 21: 486-489; [CrossRef]
  3. Platt MJ. Outcomes in preterm infants. Public Health. 2014 May;128(5):399-403. [CrossRef]
  4. Saigal S, Doyle LW. An overview of mortality and sequelae of preterm birth from infancy to adulthood. Lancet. 2008 Jan 19;371(9608):261-9. [CrossRef]
  5. Himpens E, Van den Broeck C, Oostra A, Calders P, Vanhaesebrouch P. Prevalence, type, distribution and severity of cerebral palsy in relation to gestational age: a meta-analytical review. Dev Med Child Neurol 2008;50:334e40. [CrossRef]
  6. Edwards J, Berube M, Erlandson K, Haug S, Johnstone H, Meagher M, Sarkodee-Ado S, Zwicker JG. Development coordination disorder in school-aged children born very preterm and/or low birth weight: a systemic review. J Dev Behav Pediatr 2011;32:678e87. [CrossRef]
  7. Clark RH, Thomas P, Peabody J. Extrauterine growth restriction remains a serious problem in prematurely born neonates. Pediatrics. 2003 May;111(5 Pt 1):986-90. [CrossRef]
  8. Zozaya C, Díaz C, Saenz de Pipaón M. How Should We Define Postnatal Growth Restriction in Preterm Infants? Neonatology. 2018;114(2):177-180. [CrossRef]
  9. Roggero P, Giannì ML, Orsi A, Amato O, Piemontese P, Liotto N, Morlacchi L, Taroni F, Garavaglia E, Bracco B, Agosti M, Mosca F. Implementation of nutritional strategies decreases postnatal growth restriction in preterm infants. PLoS One. 2012;7(12):e5116. [CrossRef]
  10. De Rose DU, Cota F, Gallini F, Bottoni A, Fabrizio GC, Ricci D, Romeo DM, Mercuri E, Vento G, Maggio L. Extra-uterine growth restriction in preterm infants: Neurodevelopmental outcomes according to different definitions. Eur J Paediatr Neurol. 2021 Jul;33:135-145. [CrossRef]
  11. Martínez-Jiménez MD, Gómez-García FJ, Gil-Campos M, Pérez-Navero JL. Comorbidities in childhood associated with extrauterine growth restriction in preterm infants: a scoping review. Eur J Pediatr. 2020 Aug;179(8):1255-1265. [CrossRef]
  12. Ehrenkranz RA, Dusick AM, Vohr BR, Wright LL, Wrage LA, Poole WK. Growth in the neonatal intensive care unit influences neurodevelopmental and growth outcomes of extremely low birth weight infants. Pediatrics. 2006 Apr;117(4):1253-61. [CrossRef]
  13. Guellec I, Lapillonne A, Marret S, Picaud JC, Mitanchez D, Charkaluk ML, Fresson J, Arnaud C, Flamant C, Cambonie G, Kaminski M, Roze JC, Ancel PY. Étude Épidémiologique sur les Petits Âges Gestationnels (EPIPAGE; [Epidemiological Study on Small Gestational Ages]) Study Group. Effect of Intra- and Extrauterine Growth on Long-Term Neurologic Outcomes of Very Preterm Infants. J Pediatr. 2016 Aug;175:93. [CrossRef]
  14. Parodi A, Morana G, Severino MS, Malova M, Natalizia AR, Sannia A, Rossi A, Ramenghi LA. Low-grade intraventricular hemorrhage: is ultrasound good enough? J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2015 Nov;28 Suppl 1:2261-4. [CrossRef]
  15. Parodi A, Rossi A, Severino M, Morana G, Sannia A, Calevo MG, Malova M, Ramenghi LA. Accuracy of ultrasound in assessing cerebellar haemorrhages in very low birthweight babies. Arch Dis Child Fetal Neonatal Ed. 2015 Jul;100(4):F289-92. [CrossRef]
  16. Bancker BQ, Larroche JC. Periventricular leukomalacia of infancy. A form of neonatal anoxic encephalopathy. Arch Neurol. 1962 Nov; 7: 386-410; [CrossRef]
  17. Sannia A, Natalizia AR, Parodi A, Malova M, Fumagalli M, Rossi A et al. Different gestational 270 ages and changing vulnerability of the premature brain. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med 2015; 28 271 Suppl 1: 2268–72. [CrossRef]
  18. Krageloh-Mann I, Horber V. The role of magnetic resonance imaging in elucidating the pathogenesis of cerebral palsy: a systematic review. Dev Med Child Neurol. 2007; 49: 144– 151; [CrossRef]
  19. Woodward LJ, Clark, CA, Bora, S, Inder, TE. Neonatal white matter abnormalities an important predictor of neurocognitive outcome for very preterm children. PLoS One. 2012; 7: 518-79; [CrossRef]
  20. Inder T, Perlman J, Volpe J. Unit V - Intracranial hemorrhage. In: Neurology of the Newborn ( Sixth Edition) by JJ Volpe, TE Inder, BT Darras, et al. Elsevier; 2018. p. 591– 698.
  21. Parodi A, Govaert P, Horsch S, Bravo MC, Ramenghi LA; eurUS.brain group. Cranial ultrasound findings in preterm germinal matrix haemorrhage, sequelae and outcome. Pediatr Res. 2020 Mar;87(Suppl 1):13-24. [CrossRef]
  22. De Angelis LC, Parodi A, Sebastiani M, Consales A, Ravegnani GM, Severino M, Tortora D, Rossi A, Malova M, Minghetti D, Cama A, Piatelli G, Ramenghi LA. External ventricular drainage for posthemorrhagic ventricular dilatation in preterm infants: insights on efficacy and failure. J Neurosurg Pediatr. 2021 Sep 3;28(5):563-571. [CrossRef]
  23. Parodi A, Giordano I, De Angelis L, Malova M, Calevo MG, Preiti D, Ravegnani M, Cama A, Bellini C, Ramenghi LA. Post-haemorrhagic hydrocephalus management: Delayed neonatal transport negatively affects outcome. Acta Paediatr. 2021 Jan;110(1):168-170. [CrossRef]
  24. Boswinkel V, Steggerda SJ, Fumagalli M, Parodi A, Ramenghi LA, Groenendaal F, Dudink J, Benders MN, Knol R, de Vries LS, van Wezel-Meijler G. The CHOPIn Study: a Multicenter Study on Cerebellar Hemorrhage and Outcome in Preterm Infants. Cerebellum. 2019 Dec;18(6):989-998. [CrossRef]
  25. Uccella S, Parodi A, Calevo MG, Nobili L, Tortora D, Severino M, Andreato C, Group, Eu-Brain Neonatal and Rossi A, Ramenghi LA. Influence of isolated low-grade intracranial haemorrhages on the neurodevelopmental outcome of infants born very low birthweight. Dev Med Child Neurol. 2023 Mar 30. [CrossRef]
  26. Parodi A, Malova M, Cardiello V, Raffa S, Re M, Calevo MG, Severino M, Tortora D, Morana G, Rossi A, Ramenghi LA. Punctate white matter lesions of preterm infants: Risk factor analysis. Eur J Paediatr Neurol. 2019 Sep;23(5):733-739. [CrossRef]
  27. de Bruijn CAM, Di Michele S, Tataranno ML, Ramenghi LA, Rossi A, Malova M, Benders M, van den Hoogen A, Dudink J. Neurodevelopmental consequences of preterm punctate white matter lesions: a systematic review. Pediatr Res. 2023 May;93(6):1480-1490. [CrossRef]
  28. Kurinczuk JJ, White-Koning M, Badawi N. Epidemiology of neonatal encephalopathy and hypoxic-ischaemic encephalopathy. Early Hum Dev 2012;86:329e38. [CrossRef]
  29. Bassler D, Stoll BJ, Schmidt B, Asztalos EV, Roberts RS, Robertson CM, Sauve RS. rial of Indomethacin Prophylaxis in Preterms Investigators. Using a count of neonatal morbidities to predict poor outcome in extremely low birth weight infants: added role of neonatal infection. Pediatrics. 2009 Jan;123(1):313-8. [CrossRef]
  30. Soraisham AS, Amin HJ, Al-Hindi MY, Singhal N, Sauve RS. Does necrotising enterocolitis impact the neurodevelopmental and growth outcomes in preterm infants with birthweight < or =1250 g? J Paediatr Child Health. 2006 Sep;42(9):499-504. [CrossRef]
  31. Hickey M, Georgieff M, Ramel S. Neurodevelopmental outcomes following necrotizing enterocolitis. Semin Fetal Neonatal Med. 2018 Dec;23(6):426-432. [CrossRef]
  32. Gou X, Yang L, Pan L, Xiao D. Association between bronchopulmonary dysplasia and cerebral palsy in children: a meta-analysis. BMJ Open. 2018 Sep 19;8(9):e020735. [CrossRef]
  33. Cheong JLY, Doyle LW. An update on pulmonary and neurodevelopmental outcomes of bronchopulmonary dysplasia. Semin Perinatol. 2018 Nov;42(7):478-484. [CrossRef]
  34. Poets CF, Lorenz L. Prevention of bronchopulmonary dysplasia in extremely low gestational age neonates: current evidence. Arch Dis Child Fetal Neonatal Ed. 2018 May;103(3):F285-F291. [CrossRef]
  35. Hunt RW, Hickey LM, Burnett AC, Anderson PJ, Cheong JLY, Doyle LW; Victorian Infant Collaborative Study group. Early surgery and neurodevelopmental outcomes of children born extremely preterm. Arch Dis Child Fetal Neonatal Ed. 2018 May;103(3):F227-F232. [CrossRef]
  36. Tortora D, Severino M, Di Biase C, Malova M, Parodi A, Minghetti D, Traggiai C, Uccella S, Boeri L, Morana G, Rossi A, Ramenghi LA. Early Pain Exposure Influences Functional Brain Connectivity in Very Preterm Neonates. Front Neurosci. 2019 Aug 23;13:899. [CrossRef]
  37. Antonov NK, Ruzal-Shapiro CB, Morel KD, Millar WS, Kashyap S, Lauren CT, Garzon MC. Feed and Wrap MRI Technique in Infants. Clin Pediatr (Phila). 2017 Oct;56(12):1095-1103. [CrossRef]
  38. Parodi A, Morana G, Severino MS, Malova M, Natalizia AR, Sannia A, Rossi A, Ramenghi LA. Low-grade intraventricular hemorrhage: is ultrasound good enough? J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2015 Nov;28 Suppl 1:2261-4. [CrossRef]
  39. Boswinkel V, Steggerda SJ, Fumagalli M, Parodi A, Ramenghi LA, Groenendaal F, et al. The CHOPIn Study: a Multicenter Study on Cerebellar Hemorrhage and Outcome in Preterm Infants. Cerebellum. 2019 Dec; 18(6): 989– 98. [CrossRef]
  40. Malova M, Morelli E, Cardiello V, Tortora D, Severino M, Calevo MG, Parodi A, De Angelis LC, Minghetti D, Rossi A, Ramenghi LA. Nosological Differences in the Nature of Punctate White Matter Lesions in Preterm Infants. Front Neurol. 2021 Apr 29;12:657461. [CrossRef]
  41. Villar J, Giuliani F, Fenton TR, Ohuma EO, Ismail LC, Kennedy SH et al. INTERGROWTH-21st very preterm size at birth reference charts. Lancet 2016, 387(10021):844-45. [CrossRef]
  42. Villar J, Giuliani F, Bhutta ZA, Bertino E, Ohuma EO, Ismail LC et al. Postnatal growth standards for preterm infants: the Preterm Postnatal Follow-up Study of the INTERGROWTH-21st Project. Lancet Glob Health 2015, 3(11):e681-e691. [CrossRef]
  43. LMS Parameters for Girls: Infant Weight for Age. National health and nutrition survey (NHANES), CDC/National Center for Health Statistics; . LMS Parameters for Boys: Infant Weight for Age. National health and nutrition survey (NHANES), CDC/National Center for Health Statistics; : s.n.
  44. Fenton TR, Chan HT, Madhu A, Griffin IJ, Hoyos A, Ziegler EE, et al. Preterm infant growth velocity calculations: a systematic review. Pediatrics. 2017;139:e20162045. [CrossRef]
  45. Griffiths R, Huntley M. GMDS-R Griffiths mental development scales- revised 0–2 years. In: Battaglia FM, Savoini M (eds) Manuale. Giunti O.S, Firenze 2007;.
  46. Kumar, R.K.; Singhal, A.; Vaidya, U.; Banerjee, S.; Anwar, F.; Rao, S. Optimizing Nutrition in Preterm Low Birth Weight Infants—Consensus Summary. Front. Nutr. 2017, 4, 20. [CrossRef]
  47. Zhou Q, Zhang L, Lee SK, Chen C, Hu XJ, Liu C, Cao Y. A Quality Improvement Initiative to Increase Mother's Own Milk Use in a Chinese Neonatal Intensive Care Unit. Breastfeed Med. 2020 Apr;15(4):261-267. [CrossRef]
  48. Cerasani J, Ceroni F, De Cosmi V, Mazzocchi A, Morniroli D, Roggero P, Mosca F, Agostoni C, Giannì ML. Human Milk Feeding and Preterm Infants' Growth and Body Composition: A Literature Review. Nutrients. 2020 Apr 21;12(4):1155. [CrossRef]
  49. ESPGHAN Committee on Nutrition; Aggett PJ, Agostoni C, Axelsson I, De Curtis M, et. al. Feeding preterm infants after hospital discharge: a commentary by the ESPGHAN Committee on Nutrition. J Pediatr Gastroenterol Nutr. 2006 May;42(5):596-603. [CrossRef]
  50. Lucas, A.; Morley, R.; Cole, T.J.; Lister, G.; Leeson-Payne, C. Breast milk and subsequent intelligence quotient in. Lancet 1992, 339, 261–264. [CrossRef]
  51. Vohr BR, Poindexter BB, Dusick AM, McKinley LT, Higgins RD, Langer JC, Poole WK. National Institute of Child Health and Human Development National Research Network. Persistent beneficial effects of breast milk ingested in the neonatal intensive care unit on outcomes of extremely low birth weight infants at 30 months of age. s.l. : Pediatrics. 2007 Oct;120(4):e953-9. [CrossRef]
  52. Young, L.; Embleton, N.D.; McCormick, F.M.; McGuire, W. Multinutrient fortification of human milk for preterm infants. Cochrane Database Syst. Rev. 2013, 2, CD004866.
  53. Young L, Embleton ND, McGuire W. Nutrient-enriched formula versus standard formula for preterm infants following hospital discharge. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2016 Dec 13;12(12):CD004696.
  54. Vandenplas Y, Ksiażyk J, Luna MS, Migacheva N, Picaud JC, Ramenghi LA, Singhal A, Wabitsch M. Partial Hydrolyzed Protein as a Protein Source for Infant Feeding: Do or Don't? Nutrients. 2022 Apr 21;14(9):1720. [CrossRef]
  55. World Health Organization. Complementary feeding: report of the global consultation, and summary of guiding principles for complementary feeding of the breastfed child. World Health Organization. 2003.
  56. EFSA Panel on Nutrition, Novel Foods and Food Allergens (NDA) and Castenmiller J, de Henauw S, Hirsch-Ernst KI, Kearney J, Knutsen HK, Maciuk A, Mangelsdorf I, McArdle HJ, Naska A, Pelaez C, Pentieva K, Siani A, Thies F, Tsabouri S, Vinceti M, Bresson JL, Fe. Appropriate age range for introduction of complementary feeding into an infant's diet. EFSA J. 2019 Sep 12;17(9):e05780. [CrossRef]
  57. Baldassarre ME, Di Mauro A, Pedico A, Rizzo V, Capozza M, Meneghin F, Lista G, Laforgia N; SIP, SIN, SIGENP. Weaning Time in Preterm Infants: An Audit of Italian Primary Care Paediatricians. Nutrients. 2018 May 15;10(5):616. [CrossRef]
  58. Fewtrell M, Bronsky J, Campoy C, et al. Complementary feeding: a position paper by the European Society for Paediatric Gastroenterology, hepatology, and nutrition (ESPGHAN) committee on nutrition. J Pediatr Gastroenterol Nutr. 2017;64:119–32. [CrossRef]
  59. DHSS (Department of Health and Social Security). Present day practice in infant feeding. Lancet. 1988;331:975–6.
  60. Department of Health. Weaning and the weaning diet. Rep Health Soc Subj (Lond). 1994;45:1-113.
  61. Palmer DJ, Makrides M. Introducing solid foods to preterm infants in developed countries. Ann Nutr Metab. 2012;60:31–8. [CrossRef]
  62. Gupta S, Agarwal R, Aggarwal KC, Chellani H, Duggal A, Arya S, Bhatia S, Sankar MJ, Sreenivas V, Jain V, Gupta AK, Deorari AK, Paul VK. Investigators of the CF trial. Complementary feeding at 4 versus 6 months of age for preterm infants born at less than 34 weeks of gestation: a randomised, open-label, multicentre trial. Lancet Glob Health. 2017 May;5(5):e501-e511. [CrossRef]
  63. Marriott LD, Foote KD, Bishop JA, Kimber AC, Morgan JB. Weaning preterm infants: a randomised controlled trial. Arch Dis Child Fetal Neonatal Ed. 2003;88:F302–7. [CrossRef]
  64. Haiden N, Thanhaeuser M, Eibensteiner F, Huber-Dangl M, Gsoellpointner M, Ristl R, Kroyer B, Brandstetter S, Kornsteiner-Krenn M, Binder C, Thajer A, Jilma B. Randomized Controlled Trial of Two Timepoints for Introduction of Standardized Complementary Food in Preterm Infants. Nutrients. 2022 Feb 7;14(3):697. [CrossRef]
  65. Spiegler J, Eisemann N, Ehlers S, Orlikowsky T, Kannt O, Herting E, et al. Length and weight of very low birth weight infants in Germany at 2 years of age: does it matter at what age they start complementary food? Eur J Clin Nutr. 2015;69:662–7. [CrossRef]
  66. Morgan, J.B.; Lucas, A.; Fewtrell, M.S. Does weaning influence growth and health up to 18 months? Arch. Dis. Child. 2004, 89, 728–733. [CrossRef]
  67. Sun C, Foskey RJ, Allen KJ, et al. The impact of timing of introduction of solids on infant body mass index. J Pediatr. 2016;179:104–110.e1. [CrossRef]
  68. Yrjänä, J.M.S.; Koski, T.; Törölä, H.; Valkama, M.; Kulmala, P. Very early introduction of semisolid foods in preterm infants does not increase food allergies or atopic dermatitis. Ann. Allergy Asthma Immunol. 2018, 121, 353–359. [CrossRef]
  69. Baldassarre ME, Panza R, Cresi F, Salvatori G, Corvaglia L, Aceti A, Giannì ML, Liotto N, Ilardi L, Laforgia N, Maggio L, Lionetti P, Agostoni C, Orfeo L, Di Mauro A, Staiano A, Mosca F and Italian Society of Paediatrics (SIP), Italian Society of Neonatology. Complementary feeding in preterm infants: a position paper by Italian neonatal, paediatric and paediatric gastroenterology joint societies. Ital J Pediatr. 2022 Aug 5;48(1). [CrossRef]
  70. Salvatori G, Martini L, The Study Group On Neonatal Nutrition And Gastroenterology-Italian Society Of Neonatology OBO. Complementary Feeding in the Preterm Infants: Summary of Available Macronutrient Intakes and Requirements. Nutrients. 2020 Nov 30;12(12). [CrossRef]
  71. Ojha S, Elfzzani Z, Kwok TC, Dorling J. Education of family members to support weaning to solids and nutrition in later infancy in term-born infants. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2020;7(7):CD012241.
  72. Elfzzani Z, Kwok TC, Ojha S, Dorling J. Education of family members to support weaning to solids and nutrition in infants born preterm. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2019 Feb 21;2(2):CD012240. [CrossRef]
  73. Duncan AF, Matthews MA. Neurodevelopmental Outcomes in Early Childhood. Clin Perinatol. 2018 Sep;45(3):377-392. [CrossRef]
  74. Fitzgerald E, Boardman JP, Drake AJ. Preterm Birth and the Risk of Neurodevelopmental Disorders - Is There a Role for Epigenetic Dysregulation? Curr Genomics. 2018 Nov; 19(7): 507– 21. [CrossRef]
  75. Malova M, Parodi A, Severino M, Tortora D, Calevo MG, Traggiai C, Massirio P, Minghetti D, Uccella S, Preiti D, Nobili L, Rossi A, Ramenghi LA. Neurodevelopmental Outcome at 3 Years of Age in Very Low Birth Weight Infants According to Brain Development and Lesions. Curr Pediatr Rev. 2024;20(1):94-105. [CrossRef]
Table 1. Population features.
Table 1. Population features.
Whole population N= 288
Gestational age (weeks) 28.9 + 2.1
Birth Weight (g) 1097 + 255 g (z-score -0,449 + 1,09)
Small for gestational age (SGA) 62 (21,5%)
Male sex 139 (48,3%)
Cesarean delivery 232 (80,6%)
Apgarat 5 minutes 8+ 1,2
Sepsis 108 (37,5%)
Necrotizing enterocolitis (NEC) 30 (10,4%)
Bronchodysplasia (BPD) 68 (23,6%)
Major Surgery 36 (12,5%)
NEC Surgery 15 (5,2%)
Patent Ductus Arteriosus Surgery 17 (5,9%)
Exclusive mother-milk feeding 49 (17%)
Exclusive formula feeding 118 (41%)
MRI low-grade lesions 101 (35,1%)
Low-grade intraventricular-hemorrhage (GMH-IVH) 44 (15,3%)
Punctate white matter lesions (PWML) 47 (16,3%)
Cerebellar micro-hemorrage (micro-CBH) 31 (10,8%)
Weight at term age TEA (g) 2600 + 598 (z-score -1.407 + 1.415)
“Cross-sectional” EUGR at TEA 144 (50%)
“Longitudinal” EUGR at TEA 126 (43,8%)
Weight at 6 months (kg) 6.81 + 1.03 (z-score -1.240+ 1.29)
“Cross-sectional” EUGR at 6 months 133 (46,2%)
“Longitudinal” EUGR at 6 months 46 (16,0%)
Weight at 12 months (kg) 8.78+ 1.16 (z-score -1.360+ 1.25)
“Cross-sectional” EUGR at 12 months 139 (48,3%)
Data are reported in mean value + SDS for continuous variables, absolute number, and percentage for categorical variables.
Table 2. Griffith mental development scale II (GMDS) results at 2 and 3 years in the whole population for Global and sub-scales development quotient (DQ).
Table 2. Griffith mental development scale II (GMDS) results at 2 and 3 years in the whole population for Global and sub-scales development quotient (DQ).
Pathologic or border line (<85) GMDS at 2y (n=288)
Global DQ 56 (19,4%)
Locomotor (scale A) 68 (23,6%)
Personal-social (scale B) 67 (23,2%)
Language (scale C) 127 (44,1%)
Hand-eye coordination (scale D) 38 (13,2%)
Performance (scale E) 70 (24,3%)
Pathologic or border line (<85) GMDS at 3y (n= 262)
Global DQ 100 (38,2%)
Locomotor (scale A) 83 (31,7%)
Personal-social (scale B) 87 (33,2%)
Language (scale C) 139 (53,0%)
Hand-eye coordination (scale D) 83 (31,6%)
Performance (scale E) 126 (48,1%)
Practicalreasoning (scale F) 101 (38,5%)
Table 3. Univariate and Multivariate Analysis results for global development quotient at 2 years.
Table 3. Univariate and Multivariate Analysis results for global development quotient at 2 years.
2y GMDS GLOBAL DQ <85 > 85
N 56 232 Total 288
z-score 6 month -1,639 + 1,582 -1,140 + 1,188 p=0,03
z-score 12 month -1,735 + 1,56 -1,264 + 1,155 p=0,03
Surgical NEC 6 (10,7%) 9 (3,9%) p=0,08
“Cross-sectional” EUGR at 6 months 33 (58,9%) 101 (43,5%) p=0,07
Multivariate analysis (corrected for GA):
z-score 6 month OR 0,74 (CI95% 0,59-0,93) p=0,01
Univariate and Multivariate Analysis corrected for gestational age (GA); Global development quotient (DQ) at 2 years Griffith Mental Development Scale. Data are reported in mean value + SDS for continuous variables, absolute number, and percentage for categorical variables. Odds ratios (OR) were calculated with a 95% confidence interval (CI). All p-values were based on two-tailed tests.
Table 4. Multivariate Analysis for different Griffith Mental Development subscales at 2 years.
Table 4. Multivariate Analysis for different Griffith Mental Development subscales at 2 years.
2y GMDS Locomotor DQ
Major surgery OR 3.79 (CI 95% 1.69-8.49) p=0,001
“Cross-sectional” EUGR at 6 months OR 1.96 (CI 95% 1.10-3.47) p=0,02
Punctate white matter lesions (PWML) OR 2,33 (CI 95% 1,15-4,71) p=0,02
2y GMDS Personal-social DQ
“Cross-sectional” EUGR at 6 months OR 1,94 (CI 95% 1,12-3,37) p=0,02
NEC OR 2,60 (CI 95% 1,14-5,92) p=0,02
2y GMDS Language DQ
Gestational age (GA) OR 0,50 (CI 95% 0,27, 0,92) p=0,02
NEC OR 2,48 (CI 95% 1,07-5,71) p=0,03
“Cross-sectional” EUGR at 6 months OR 1,87 (CI 95% 1,05-3,29) p=0,02
Weight z-score at birth OR 0,31 (CI 95% 0,12-0,81) p=0,02
2y GMDS Hand-eye coordination DQ
NEC OR 3,98 (CI 95% 1,66-9,55) p=0,002
2y GMDS Performance DQ
Male sex OR 2,01 (CI 95% 1,13-3,57) p=0,02
Punctate white matter lesions (PWML) OR 2,03 (CI 95% 1,00-4,14) p=0,05
Major surgery OR 4,07 (CI 95% 1,78-9,33) p=0,001
“Longitudinal” EUGR at 6 months OR 2,10 (CI 95% 1,03-4,30) p=0,04
Multivariate Analysis corrected for gestational age (GA) for different Griffith Mental Development subscales at 2 years. Odds ratios (OR) were calculated with a 95% confidence interval (CI). All p-values were based on two-tailed tests.
Table 5. Univariate and Multivariate Analysis results for global development quotient at 3 years.
Table 5. Univariate and Multivariate Analysis results for global development quotient at 3 years.
3y GMDS GLOBAL DQ <85 > 85
N 100 162 Total 262
Male sex 60 (60%) 70 (43,2%) p=0,01
Caesarean delivery 76 (76%) 138 (85,2%) p=0,05
NEC 17 (17%) 12 (7,4%) p=0,02
Multivariate analysis (corrected for GA):
Male sex OR 1,94 (CI 95% 1,16-3,24) p=0,01
NEC OR 2,55 (CI 95% 1,11-5,86) p=0,03
Univariate and Multivariate Analysis corrected for gestational age (GA); Global development quotient (DQ) at 3 years Griffith Mental Development Scale. Data are reported in mean value + SDS for continuous variables, absolute number, and percentage for categorical variables. Odds ratios (OR) were calculated with a 95% confidence interval (CI). All p-values were based on two-tailed tests.
Table 6. Multivariate Analysis for different Griffith Mental Development subscales at 3 years. .
Table 6. Multivariate Analysis for different Griffith Mental Development subscales at 3 years. .
3y GMDS Locomotor DQ
Gestational Age (GA) OR 0,88 (CI 95% 0,77-1) p=0,06
Male sex OR 1,82 (CI 95% 1.07-3,10) p=0,03
3y GMDS Personal-social DQ
Male sex OR 2,18 (CI 95% 1,28-3,72) p=0,004
Caesarean delivery OR 0,47 (CI 95% 0,25-0,91) p=0,02
3y GMDS Language DQ
“Cross-sectional” EUGR at 6 months OR 1,63 (CI 95% 0,99-2,68) p=0,05
Male sex OR 1,88 (CI 95% 1,14-3,10) p=0,01
3y GMDS Hand-eye coordination DQ
NEC OR 4,17 (CI 95% 1,78-9,76) p=0,001
Male sex OR 1,80 (CI95% 1,04-3,10) p=0,03
3y GMDS Performance DQ
NEC OR 4,31 (CI 95% 1,63-11,35) p=0,003
Male sex OR 2,39 (CI 95% 1,44-3,97) p=0,001
3y GMDS Practical Reasoning DQ
NEC OR 4,47 (CI 95% 1,84-10,85) p=0,001
“Longitudinal” EUGR at 6 months OR 2,07 (CI 95% 1,02-4,17) p=0,04
Multivariate Analysis corrected for gestational age (GA) for different Griffith Mental Development subscales at 3 years. Odds ratios (OR) were calculated with a 95% confidence interval (CI). All p-values were based on two-tailed tests.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.
Copyright: This open access article is published under a Creative Commons CC BY 4.0 license, which permit the free download, distribution, and reuse, provided that the author and preprint are cited in any reuse.
Prerpints.org logo

Preprints.org is a free preprint server supported by MDPI in Basel, Switzerland.

facebook logotwitter logolinkedin logo
MDPI Initiatives
Important Links
Subscribe

Disclaimer

Terms of Use

Privacy Policy

© 2024 MDPI (Basel, Switzerland) unless otherwise stated