4.5 Article

Sudden unexplained death in childhood (1-4 years) in Ireland: an epidemiological profile and comparison with SIDS

期刊

ARCHIVES OF DISEASE IN CHILDHOOD
卷 97, 期 8, 页码 692-697

出版社

BMJ PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1136/archdischild-2011-301393

关键词

-

资金

  1. Department of Health and Children, Ireland

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective To examine the incidence of sudden unexplained death in children 1-4 years old (SUDC) in Ireland and to compare the epidemiological profile of SUDC with that of SIDS. Design All cases of sudden unexplained death in children <5 years in Ireland between 1994 and 2008 were reviewed. Epidemiological information obtained from parental questionnaires and post-mortem reports was examined, and data on cases >= 52 weeks compared with cases <52 weeks. Results SUDC accounted for 5% (n=44) of deaths in children aged 1-4 years during 1994-2008. During this period, the SIDS rate dropped from 0.71 to 0.34 per 1000 live births, while the SUDC rate increased from 0.08 to 0.18 deaths per 10 000 population aged 1-4 years. The median age of SUDC cases was 71.5 weeks, and the male/female ratio was 1.3:1. All died during a sleep period, 71% between 10pm and 8am, and more than two-thirds were found prone. Fewest cases occurred during July-September (11%), and a greater proportion occurred at weekends (55%). 52% (17/33) had symptoms (any) in the 48 h before death, and 35% (11/31) visited their general practitioner because of illness in the week preceding death. SUDC differed from SIDS in prevalence of maternal smoking (38% vs 72%, p<0.001), bed-sharing (17% vs 49%, p<0.001), and whether found prone (72% vs 23%, p<0.001). Conclusion While SUDC shares some characteristics with SIDS, there are also some important differences. Further data collection will help determine whether SIDS and SUDC represent the same pathophysiological entity. Standardisation of protocols for investigating sudden deaths is urgently required for accurate diagnosis of cases.

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

4.5
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