4.2 Article

Vitamin A, E, and D Deficiencies in Tunisian Very Low Birth Weight Neonates: Prevalence and Risk Factors

期刊

PEDIATRICS AND NEONATOLOGY
卷 55, 期 3, 页码 196-201

出版社

ELSEVIER TAIWAN
DOI: 10.1016/j.pedneo.2013.09.006

关键词

pre-eclampsia; preterm neonate; very low birth weight; vitamin deficiency

资金

  1. Funds of Research Unit, Ministry of Higher Education and Scientific Research of Tunisia [05/UR 08-08]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Preterm neonates are at high risk of vitamin deficiencies, which may expose them to increased morbidity and mortality. This study aimed to determine the prevalence and risk factors for vitamin A, E, and ID deficiencies in Tunisian very low birth weight (VLBW) neonates. Methods: A total of 607 VLBW and 300 term neonates were included in the study. Plasma vitamins A and E were assessed by high performance liquid chromatography and vitamin D was assessed by radioimmunoassay. Results: Prevalence of vitamin A, E, and D deficiencies were dramatically elevated in VLBW neonates and were significantly higher than term neonates (75.9% vs. 63.3%; 71.3% vs. 55.5%; and 65.2% vs. 40.4%, respectively). In VLBW neonates, the prevalence of vitamin deficiencies was significantly higher in lower classes of gestational age and birth weight. Vitamin E deficiency was associated with pre-eclampsia [odds ratio (OR) (95% confidence interval, 95% CI), 1.56 (1.01-2.44); p < 0.011 and gestational diabetes [4.01 (1.05-17.0); p < 0.01]. Vitamin D deficiency was associated with twin pregnancy [OR (95% CI), 2.66(1.33-5.35); p < 0.011 and pre-eclampsia [2.89 (1.36-6.40); p < 0.01]. Conclusion: Vitamin A, E, and D deficiencies are very common in Tunisian VLBW neonates and are associated with pre-eclampsia. Improved nutritional and health support for pregnant women and high dose vitamins A, E, and D supplementation in VLBW neonates are strongly required in Tunisia. Copyright (C) 2013, Taiwan Pediatric Association. Published by Elsevier Taiwan LLC. 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

4.2
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