4.6 Article

Cesarean Delivery, Overweight throughout Childhood, and Blood Pressure in Adolescence

期刊

JOURNAL OF PEDIATRICS
卷 179, 期 -, 页码 111-+

出版社

MOSBY-ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.jpeds.2016.08.059

关键词

-

资金

  1. Netherlands Organization for Health Research and Development [912-03-031]
  2. Netherlands Asthma Foundation [3.4.01.26, 3.2.06.022, 3.4.09.081, 3.2.10.085CO]
  3. Netherlands Ministry of Planning, Housing and the Environment
  4. Netherlands Ministry of Health, Welfare and Sport
  5. Institute for Public Health and the Environment

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objectives To investigate whether children delivered by cesarean had a higher risk of being overweight from early until late childhood and whether they had a higher blood pressure in adolescence compared with children delivered vaginally. Study design We used data from a Dutch birth cohort study with prenatal inclusion in 1996 and 1997. Mode of delivery (cesarean or vaginal delivery) was ascertained at 3 months after birth by questionnaire. During clinical examinations, height and weight (at age 4, 8, 12, and 16 years) and blood pressure (at age 12 and 16 years) were measured. We used mixed model analysis to estimate associations of cesarean delivery with overweight and blood pressure z scores in 2641 children who participated in at least 1 of the 4 examinations. Results Children born by cesarean delivery (n = 236, 8.9%) had a 1.52 (95% CI 1.18, 1.96) higher odds of being overweight throughout childhood than children delivered vaginally. Children born by cesarean delivery had no higher systolic blood pressure z-score (0.11 SD, 95% CI -0.04, 0.26), nor a different diastolic blood pressure z-score (-0.00 SD, 95% CI -0.10, 0.09) in adolescence than children delivered vaginally. Conclusions Compared with children delivered vaginally, children delivered by cesarean had a 52% higher risk of being overweight throughout childhood, but this was not accompanied by a higher blood pressure in adolescence.

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