| Literature DB >> 28194394 |
Anna Gold1, Alaine Rogers2, Elizabeth Cruchley3, Stephanie Rankin4, Arpita Parmar4, Binita M Kamath5, Yaron Avitzur5, Vicky Lee Ng5.
Abstract
Background. Assessment of school readiness evaluates physical, social-emotional, and neuropsychological domains essential for educational success. Cognitive testing of preschool aged children with chronic liver disease may guide more timely interventions and focused efforts by health care providers. Patients and Methods. Children with chronic cholestatic liver disease diagnosed as an infant and still with their native liver (NL) and children who received a liver transplant (LT) before age of 2 years underwent testing with a battery of well-validated pediatric psychometric measures. Results. Eighteen (13 LT, 5 NL) patients (median age of 4.45 and 4.05 years, resp.) were tested. Median Full-Scale IQ was 98 (range 102-116) for LT and 116 [(range 90-106), p = 0.35, NS] for NL subjects. LT recipients had significantly greater visual based difficulties, poorer caregiver rated daily living skills (p = 0.04), and higher levels of executive function based difficulties (e.g., inattention, inhibition). Conclusion. This pilot study highlights the risk of neuropsychological difficulties in early school age children who were under 2 years of age at time of LT. Comprehensive early school age assessment should integrate psychometric measures to identify children at greatest risk, thus allowing for proactive educational intervention.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2017 PMID: 28194394 PMCID: PMC5282429 DOI: 10.1155/2017/9873945
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Can J Gastroenterol Hepatol ISSN: 2291-2789
Demographic data.
| LT | NL | |
|---|---|---|
|
|
| |
|
| ||
| Female | 8 (61) | 4 (80) |
|
| 4.45 (3.03–6.97) | 4.07 (3.47–6.26) |
|
| ||
|
| ||
| White | 6 (46) | 2 (40) |
| Black | 1 (7) | |
| Asian | 3 (23) | 3 (60) |
| Others/not known | 3 (23) | |
|
| ||
| Biliary Atresia | 13 (100) | 4 (80) |
| Alpha 1 antitrypsin | 1 (20) | |
|
| 16.7 (14.4–20.8) | 16.58 (15.3–17.3) |
|
| 11 (85) | 3 (60) |
|
| ||
| High school graduate | 5 (38) | 1 (20) |
| Postsecondary | 4 (30) | 4 (80) |
| Postgraduate | 2 (15) | 0 |
| Not available | 2 (15) | |
|
| ||
| Under $50,000 | 2 (15) | 3 (60) |
| $50,001–$80,000 | 1 (7) | 2 (40) |
| Over $80,001 | 7 (54) | 0 |
| Not available | 3 (23) | |
|
| ||
| Tacrolimus | 11 (85%) | |
| Sirolimus | 2 (15%) | |
|
| ||
| 1–3 | 8 (62%) | |
| 4–7 | 2 (15%) | |
| >7 | 1 (7) | |
|
| ||
| <12 months | 7 (54%) | |
| 12–23 months | 6 (46%) | |
|
| ||
| Whole | 1 (8%) | |
| Reduced | 1 (8%) | |
| Split | 2 (15%) | |
| Live donor | 9 (69%) | |
|
| 45.5 (0–131) | |
|
| 48.7 (0–172) | |
|
| 65.3 (15–223) | |
|
| 114 (0–223) | 16.75 (5–25) |
|
|
| |
|
| 8.17 (4.78–13.93) | 16.18 (14.7–17.6) |
|
| 1.4 (1–1.9) | 0.94 (0.9–1) |
|
| 29 (22–36) | 44.6 (37–49) |
|
| ||
| | 80% (4) | |
| | 80% (4) |
Cognitive task results, WPPSI-IV.
| Test domain | Group |
| Median | IOR |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Verbal Composite Index | LT | 11 | 96 | 15 | 0.36 |
| NL | 5 | 102 | 18 | ||
| Visual-Spatial Index | LT | 12 | 90 | 24 | 0.16 |
| NL | 5 | 106 | 15 | ||
| Fluid-Reasoning Index | LT | 7 | 97 | 27 | 0.56 |
| NL | 3 | 112 | 18 | ||
| working Memory Index | LT | 11 | 106 | 17 | 0.79 |
| NL | 5 | 106 | 22 | ||
| Processing Speed Index | LT | 7 | 100 | 17 | 0.15 |
| NL | 3 | 108 | 25 | ||
| Full-Scale IQ | LT | 11 | 98 | 17 | 0.35 |
| NL | 5 | 116 | 25 |
Figure 1Beery VMI score results between LT and NL groups.
Figure 2Movement ABC score results between LT and NL groups.
Vineland scores for LT and NL groups.
| Test domain | Group |
| Median |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Adaptive behavioural composite | LT | 10 | 105 | 0.10 |
| NL | 4 | 119 | ||
| Communication | LT | 10 | 106 | 0.01 |
| NL | 4 | 129.5 | ||
| Daily living | LT | 11 | 109 | 0.83 |
| NL | 4 | 113 | ||
| Sociability | LT | 11 | 105 | 0.08 |
| NL | 4 | 117 | ||
| Motor skills | LT | 10 | 100 | 0.02 |
| NL | 4 | 112.5 |
Statistically significant scores (<0.05).
Figure 3BASC-II parent and teacher scores between LT and NL groups. Higher standard scores represent greater perceived skill deficit, with the exception of adaptive skills, where lower scores represent poorer perceived level of functioning. behaviour. bInternalizing behaviour. cBehaviour Symptoms Index. dAdaptive skill. eSchool problems.
Figure 4BRIEF parent and teacher scores between LT and NL group. Higher scores represent poorer perceived functioning. Self-Control Index. bFlexibility Index. cEmergent Metacognition Index. dGlobal executive composite. eBehavioural Regulation Index.