| Literature DB >> 34107905 |
Yang Liu1,2, Zheng-Feng Li1,2, Yun-Huan Zhong1,2, Zhi-Hui Zhao1,2, Wen-Xin Deng1,2, Ling-Ling Chen1,2, Bei-Bei Liu1,2, Tao-Jun Du1,2, Yong Zhang3,4.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: To explore the clinical effect of early combined rehabilitation intervention on premature infants in the neonatal intensive care unit (NICU).Entities:
Keywords: Early rehabilitation comprehensive intervention treatment; Premature infants; Prognosis
Year: 2021 PMID: 34107905 PMCID: PMC8188692 DOI: 10.1186/s12887-021-02727-8
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Pediatr ISSN: 1471-2431 Impact factor: 2.125
Fig. 1Neonatal behavioral neurological assessment scale.
Demographic data comparison (Mean ± SDa)
| Group | Cases | Sex (Cases) | Birth weight (g) | Gestational age (weeks) | Intervention time (PMA, weeks) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Man | Male | |||||
| The intervention group | 22 | 11 | 11 | 1348.18 ± 207.10 | 30.3 ± 1.1 | 32 ± 1.2 |
| The control group | 29 | 13 | 16 | 1338.45 ± 211.51 | 30.7 ± 1.3 | 31 ± 1.5 |
| 0.134 | 0.027 | 0.908 | 2.613 | |||
| 0.714b | 0.87 b | 0.345 b | 0.112 b | |||
aStandard deviation
b There was no statistically significant difference in sex, gestational age, birth weight, or start time of the intervention between the intervention group and the control group
Comparison of clinical treatment indicators (Mean ± SD, day)
| Group | Invasive ventilation time | Noninvasive ventilation time | duration of oxygen supplementation | duration of indwelling gastric tube use | Days for hospitalization |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Intervention group | 3.63 ± 8.60 | 13.60 ± 9.08 | 22.84 ± 13.78 | 23.13 ± 12.84 | 39.18 ± 10.32 |
| control group | 5.55 ± 9.98 | 21.47 ± 12.98 | 31.98 ± 15.97 | 33.45 ± 15.48 | 47.45 ± 16.11 |
| 0.534 | 5.881 | 4.596 | 6.596 | 4.406 | |
| 0.469d | 0.019 a | 0.037a | 0.015 b | 0.041c |
abc The difference was statistically significant in the Noninvasive ventilation time,the duration of oxygen supplementation, the duration of indwelling gastric tube use,days for hospitalization between the intervention group and the control group
d The time of invasive ventilation before starting intervention was not statistically significant between the two groups
Comparison of the incidence of common complications in preterm infants (case (%))
| Group | ROP | BPD | NEC | intracranial haemorrhage |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| The intervention group | 2 (9) | 5 (23) | 1 (4.5) | 1 (4.5) |
| The control group | 10 (34) | 16 (55) | 8 (27.6) | 5 (17.2) |
| 3.183 | 8.065 | 4.062 | 0.912 | |
| 0.048a | 0.005b | 0.025c | 0.34d |
abc The difference was statistically significant in the incidences of ROP,BPD,NEC in the intervention group and control group
d The difference was not statistically significant in the incidence of intracranial haemorrhage between the intervention group and the control group
Comparison of NBNA scores
| Group | scores > 37 | scores = 35–36 | scores < 35 | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| The intervention group | 21 | 1 | 0 | 17.66 | 0.000b |
| The control group | 23 | 5 | 1 |
a There was no significant difference in the mean of NBNA scores between the two groups (P > 0.05)
b Further statistical analysis and the Wilcoxon rank sum test showed that the difference was statistically significant (P < 0.05)
Comparison of Sliverman scores
| Group | start time | first week | second week | third week | F-value | P-value |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| The intervention group | 4.32 ± 1.91 | 2.36 ± 1.36 | 2.09 ± 1.15 | 1.41 ± 0.73 | 89.071 | 0.000d |
| The control group | 5.17 ± 1.67 | 4.41 ± 1.78 | 3.48 ± 1.70 | 2.66 ± 1.91 | ||
| 2.887 | 20.109 | 10.888 | 8.359 | 2.609 | 0.037c | |
| 0.096a | 0.000b | 0.000b | 0.006b |
a Sliverman scores in the intervention group and the control group at the beginning of the intervention group showed no significant difference (P > 0.05)
b The comparison of each time period within the group showed that the difference was statistically significant (P < 0.05)
c There was an interaction between the test time and the group (P < 0.05)
d The Sliverman scores of the two groups at different times were significantly different (P < 0.05)
Comparison of the neuromuscular scores in the Ballard scores analysis
| Group | start time | first week | second week | third week | F-value | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| The intervention group | 17.23 ± 3.18 | 18.73 ± 1.72 | 20.00 ± 1.72 | 21.41 ± 1.87 | 30.571 | 0.000d |
| The control group | 16.10 ± 2.43 | 16.24 ± 2.31 | 16.48 ± 2.20 | 17.97 ± 2.24 | ||
| 2.056 | 17.896 | 34.446 | 38.446 | 2.817 | 0.049c | |
| 0.158a | 0.000b | 0.000b | 0.000b |
a Ballard scores in the intervention group and the control group at the beginning of the intervention group showed no significant difference(P > 0.05)
b The comparison of each time period within the group showed that the difference was statistically significant (P < 0.05)
c There was an interaction between the test time and the group (P < 0.05)
d The Ballard scores of the two groups at different times were significantly different (P < 0.05)