4.6 Article

Factors Associated with Respiratory Illness in Children and Young Adults with Cerebral Palsy

期刊

JOURNAL OF PEDIATRICS
卷 168, 期 -, 页码 151-+

出版社

MOSBY-ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.jpeds.2015.09.064

关键词

-

资金

  1. Health Networks Funding from Western Australian Health Department

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective To describe associations between respiratory illness and its potential predictors in children and young adults with cerebral palsy (CP). Study design Cross-sectional survey of self-and caregiver-reported respiratory symptoms for individuals aged up to 26 years with CP. Respiratory illness was indicated by 2 outcomes: (1) >= 1 respiratory hospitalizations in the past year; and (2) >= 2 courses of antibiotics for respiratory symptoms in the past year. ORs were calculated using univariate and multivariate logistic regression. Results There were 551 participants, aged 1-26 years, distributed across all gross motor function classification scale (GMFCS) levels. In univariate analyses, factors significantly associated with respiratory hospitalizations were weekly respiratory symptoms (OR 2.31, 95% CI 1.78-3.00), respiratory symptoms during meals (OR 3.23, 95% CI 1.50-5.80), gastroesophageal reflux (OR 3.01, 95% CI 1.71-5.31), coughing or choking on saliva (OR 4.36, 95% CI 2.38-8.01), current asthma (OR 3.56, 95% CI 1.97-6.42), age (0-3 years) (OR 3.24, 95% CI 1.19-8.80, compared with 13-17 years), seizures (OR 3.45, 95% CI 1.96-6.08), and scoliosis (OR 2.14, 95% CI 1.16-3.97). Nonambulatory individuals (GMFCS IV-V) were at significantly increased risk of hospitalizations only if they had food modifications and/or nasogastric or gastrostomy tube feeds (OR 5.36, 95% CI 2.89-9.96, compared with GMFCS I-III with no food modifications and no tube). All factors, except seizures and scoliosis, were significantly associated with multiple courses of antibiotics in univariate analyses. Conclusions Oromotor dysfunction is strongly associated with respiratory illness in patients with CP.

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