4.6 Article

Longitudinal Assessment of Growth in Hypoplastic Left Heart Syndrome: Results From the Single Ventricle Reconstruction Trial

期刊

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1161/JAHA.114.000079

关键词

growth; hypoplastic left heart syndrome; pediatrics; risk factors

资金

  1. National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute [HL068269, HL068270, HL068279, HL068281, HL068285, HL068292, HL068290, HL068288, HL085057]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background-We sought to characterize growth between birth and age 3 years in infants with hypoplastic left heart syndrome who underwent the Norwood procedure. Methods and Results-We performed a secondary analysis using the Single Ventricle Reconstruction Trial database after excluding patients <37 weeks gestation (N=498). We determined length-for-age z score (LAZ) and weight-for-age z score (WAZ) at birth and age 3 years and change in WAZ over 4 clinically relevant time periods. We identified correlates of change in WAZ and LAZ using multivariable linear regression with bootstrapping. Mean WAZ and LAZ were below average relative to the general population at birth (P<0.001, P=0.05, respectively) and age 3 years (P<0.001 each). The largest decrease in WAZ occurred between birth and Norwood discharge; the greatest gain occurred between stage II and 14 months. At age 3 years, WAZ and LAZ were <-2 in 6% and 18%, respectively. Factors associated with change in WAZ differed among time periods. Shunt type was associated with change in WAZ only in the Norwood discharge to stage II period; subjects with a Blalock-Taussig shunt had a greater decline in WAZ than those with a right ventricle-pulmonary artery shunt (P=0.002). Conclusions-WAZ changed over time and the predictors of change in WAZ varied among time periods. By age 3 years, subjects remained small and three times as many children were short as were underweight (>2 SD below normal). Failure to find consistent risk factors supports the strategy of tailoring nutritional therapies to patient-and stage-specific targets.

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

4.6
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