Ira Adams-Chapman1, Carla Bann2, Sheena L Carter3, Barbara J Stoll4. 1. Emory University School of Medicine, Department of Pediatrics, 2015 Uppergate Drive, Atlanta, GA 30303, United States. Electronic address: iadamsc@emory.edu. 2. Research Triangle Institute, Research Triangle Park, NC, United States. Electronic address: cmb@rti.org. 3. Emory University School of Medicine, Department of Pediatrics, 2015 Uppergate Drive, Atlanta, GA 30303, United States. Electronic address: scart01@emory.edu. 4. Emory University School of Medicine, Department of Pediatrics, 2015 Uppergate Drive, Atlanta, GA 30303, United States. Electronic address: bstoll@emory.edu.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Limited data are available evaluating language outcomes of preterm infants in early childhood. Furthermore, the relationship between language outcomes, medical morbidities and developmental trajectory in early infancy is unclear. AIMS: The goal of this study was to evaluate language outcomes among extremely low birth weight (ELBW) infants at 30months adjusted age (AA). STUDY DESIGN: The Bayley Scales of Infant Development II and the Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test or Expressive One Word Picture Vocabulary Test/Receptive One Word Picture Vocabulary Test were administered at 30months AA to a prospective cohort of ELBW infants who participated in the NICHD Neonatal Network Glutamine Trial and Neurodevelopmental Follow-Up Study. A standardized history and physical examination and query regarding feeding behaviors were performed at 18months AA and 30months AA. RESULTS: Of the 467 infants evaluated, 55% had receptive language delay at 30months with 23% having severe delays. Fewer (26%) had expressive language delays, with 16% of those being severe delays. Non-English speaking infants had poorer performance on all language measures compared to English-speaking infants. Forty-seven percent of the cohort required assistance with feeds at 18months. These children were more likely to have language delay at the 30month assessment compared to infants who could feed themselves. CONCLUSIONS: ELBW infants are at risk of language delay in early childhood. Additional research is needed to further explore the relationship between early predictors of language delay and the use of monolingual language assessments in non-English speaking patients with a history of prematurity.
BACKGROUND: Limited data are available evaluating language outcomes of preterm infants in early childhood. Furthermore, the relationship between language outcomes, medical morbidities and developmental trajectory in early infancy is unclear. AIMS: The goal of this study was to evaluate language outcomes among extremely low birth weight (ELBW) infants at 30months adjusted age (AA). STUDY DESIGN: The Bayley Scales of Infant Development II and the Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test or Expressive One Word Picture Vocabulary Test/Receptive One Word Picture Vocabulary Test were administered at 30months AA to a prospective cohort of ELBW infants who participated in the NICHD Neonatal Network Glutamine Trial and Neurodevelopmental Follow-Up Study. A standardized history and physical examination and query regarding feeding behaviors were performed at 18months AA and 30months AA. RESULTS: Of the 467 infants evaluated, 55% had receptive language delay at 30months with 23% having severe delays. Fewer (26%) had expressive language delays, with 16% of those being severe delays. Non-English speaking infants had poorer performance on all language measures compared to English-speaking infants. Forty-seven percent of the cohort required assistance with feeds at 18months. These children were more likely to have language delay at the 30month assessment compared to infants who could feed themselves. CONCLUSIONS: ELBW infants are at risk of language delay in early childhood. Additional research is needed to further explore the relationship between early predictors of language delay and the use of monolingual language assessments in non-English speaking patients with a history of prematurity.
Authors: Maureen Hack; Daniel J Flannery; Mark Schluchter; Lydia Cartar; Elaine Borawski; Nancy Klein Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2002-01-17 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Brenda B Poindexter; Richard A Ehrenkranz; Barbara J Stoll; Linda L Wright; W Kenneth Poole; William Oh; Charles R Bauer; Lu-Ann Papile; Jon E Tyson; Waldemar A Carlo; Abbot R Laptook; Vivek Narendran; David K Stevenson; Avroy A Fanaroff; Sheldon B Korones; Seetha Shankaran; Neil N Finer; James A Lemons Journal: Pediatrics Date: 2004-05 Impact factor: 7.124
Authors: Barbara J Stoll; Nellie I Hansen; Ira Adams-Chapman; Avroy A Fanaroff; Susan R Hintz; Betty Vohr; Rosemary D Higgins Journal: JAMA Date: 2004-11-17 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Theresa J Ochoa; Jaime Zegarra; Sicilia Bellomo; Cesar P Carcamo; Luis Cam; Anne Castañeda; Aasith Villavicencio; Jorge Gonzales; Maria S Rueda; Christie G Turin; Alonso Zea-Vera; Daniel Guillen; Miguel Campos; Linda Ewing-Cobbs Journal: J Pediatr Date: 2020-02-06 Impact factor: 4.406
Authors: Rachel E Lean; Rachel A Paul; Christopher D Smyser; Cynthia E Rogers Journal: J Child Psychol Psychiatry Date: 2017-09-19 Impact factor: 8.982
Authors: Jean R Lowe; Janell F Fuller; Barbara T Do; Betty R Vohr; Abhik Das; Susan R Hintz; Kristi L Watterberg; Rosemary D Higgins Journal: Early Hum Dev Date: 2018-12-04 Impact factor: 2.079
Authors: Elisabeth C McGowan; Abbot R Laptook; Jean Lowe; Myriam Peralta-Carcelen; Dhuly Chowdhury; Rosemary D Higgins; Susan R Hintz; Betty R Vohr Journal: J Pediatr Date: 2019-09-06 Impact factor: 4.406
Authors: Robert K Naviaux; Brooke Curtis; Kefeng Li; Jane C Naviaux; A Taylor Bright; Gail E Reiner; Marissa Westerfield; Suzanne Goh; William A Alaynick; Lin Wang; Edmund V Capparelli; Cynthia Adams; Ji Sun; Sonia Jain; Feng He; Deyna A Arellano; Lisa E Mash; Leanne Chukoskie; Alan Lincoln; Jeanne Townsend Journal: Ann Clin Transl Neurol Date: 2017-05-26 Impact factor: 4.511
Authors: L Dupree Hatch; Theresa A Scott; William F Walsh; Adam B Goldin; Martin L Blakely; Stephen W Patrick Journal: J Perinatol Date: 2018-06-21 Impact factor: 2.521