| Literature DB >> 34465872 |
Marie-Pier Thibault1,2, Éric Tremblay1,2, Chantal Horth3, Aube Fournier-Morin1, David Grynspan4, Corentin Babakissa2,5, Emile Levy6, Emanuela Ferretti7, Valérie Bertelle8,9, Jean-François Beaulieu10,11.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Necrotizing enterocolitis (NEC) is a major challenge for premature infants in neonatal intensive care units and efforts toward the search for indicators that could be used to predict the development of the disease have given limited results until now.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2021 PMID: 34465872 PMCID: PMC8770124 DOI: 10.1038/s41390-021-01680-7
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Pediatr Res ISSN: 0031-3998 Impact factor: 3.756
Basic demographic and main clinical features of the NEC patients and non-NEC patients.
| Pairinga | No.b | Gestationalc | Birth weight (in grams) | Type of delivery | Feeding practiced | Antibioticse | PDAf | Steroidsg | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age | Sex | Prenatal | Postnatal | ||||||||
| 1 | NEC | 40 | 25 + 5 | M | 850 | C/S | BM | Y | N | Y | N |
| Non-NEC | 33 | 26 + 0 | M | 850 | C/S | BM | Y | N | Y | N | |
| Non-NEC | 54 | 25 + 2 | M | 830 | C/S | BM | N | N | Y | Y | |
| 2 | NEC | 43 | 26 + 4 | F | 930 | C/S | Fh | Y | Y | N | N |
| Non-NEC | 34 | 25 + 6 | F | 770 | C/S | Fh | Y | N | Y | N | |
| Non-NEC | 128 | 26 + 0 | F | 860 | C/S | BM/Fh | Y | N | Y | N | |
| 3 | NEC | 55 | 26 + 3 | F | 960 | VD | BM/Fh | Y | N | Y | Y |
| Non-NEC | 53 | 26 + 5 | F | 1130 | VD | Fh | Y | Y | Y | N | |
| Non-NEC | 54 | 25 + 1 | F | 730 | VD | BM/Fh | Y | Y | Y | N | |
| 4 | NEC | 57 | 26 + 4 | M | 1040 | VD | Fh | Y | Y | Y | N |
| Non-NEC | 31 | 26 + 1 | M | 920 | VD | n/ah | N | Y | Y | N | |
| Non-NEC | 125 | 26 + 5 | M | 1020 | VD | BM/Fh | N | Y | N | N | |
| 5 | NEC | 90 | 25 + 4 | M | 850 | VD | BM/Fh | Y | Y | Y | N |
| Non-NEC | 13 | 25 + 5 | M | 970 | VD | BM/Fh | Y | Y | Y | N | |
| Non-NEC | 41 | 24 + 6 | M | 780 | VD | n/ah | Y | Y | Y | N | |
| 6 | NEC | 96 | 25 + 4 | M | 890 | VD | BMh | Y | Y | Y | N |
| Non-NEC | 42 | 26 + 4 | M | 921 | VD | Fh | Y | Y | Y | N | |
| Non-NEC | 94 | 25 + 3 | M | 735 | VD | BMh | Y | Y | Y | Y | |
| 7 | NEC | 118 | 24 + 4 | M | 660 | VD | Fh | Y | N | Y | Y |
| Non-NEC | 44 | 23 + 6 | M | 680 | VD | BM/Fh | Y | N | Y | Y | |
| Non-NEC | 122 | 24 + 1 | M | 690 | VD | BM/Fh | Y | Y | Y | Y | |
| NEC | Av: | 25 + 6 | 882.9 | ||||||||
| Non-NEC | Av: | 25 + 4 | 849.0 | ||||||||
C/S cesarian, VD vaginal delivery, Av average.
aTwo non-NEC control set of samples matched with each NEC sample set.
bPatient consecutive ID number.
cAge as weeks + days and sex as female (F) vs male (M).
dBM breast milk, F formula, n/a data nonavailable.
eY: antibiotics at any time before or during stool collection; N: no antibiotic treatment.
fY: indomethacin or ibuprofen treatment for patent ductus arteriosus (PDA); N: no treatment.
gY: administration of steroids before or after birth; N: no steroid administration.
hIndicate that probiotics were included.
Fig. 1Detection of CALPRO, LCN2, and HAPTO in the stools of NEC and non-NEC premature infants by ELISA.
Stool samples analyzed were those collected over a 10-day period preceding NEC diagnosis (round symbols) and in matched non-NEC infants (square symbols). Simple linear regression for the levels of biomarkers in the stools were calculated for both NEC and non-NEC with R2 values varying between 0.02 and 0.0003 while the slopes were considered nonsignificant for all. For simplicity, only the regression line (black line, R2) for NEC samples are shown (left panels). The biomarker data were then subjected to ROC curve analyses (right panels) showing sensitivity and specificity values and cut-off evaluation (dotted lines *, left panels).
Fig. 2Relative levels of biomarkers in the stools of NEC infants for distinct periods preceding diagnosis.
For each NEC infant, the stool samples were pooled for three periods relative to the diagnosis: group A, −10 to −7 days; group B, −6 to −3 days; and group C, −2 to 0 days while non-NEC samples (NN) were pooled for the 10-day period. The means ± SEM are illustrated. *P < 0.05 (#P < 0.07) using the Wilcoxon matched pairs signed-rank test by comparison with NN.
Fig. 3Relative levels of various combinations of biomarkers in the stools of NEC infants for distinct periods preceding diagnosis.
For each NEC infant, the stool samples were pooled for three periods relative to the diagnosis: group A, −10 to −7 days; group B, −6 to −3 days; and group C, −2 to 0 days while non-NEC samples (NN) were pooled for the 10-day period and the data for combining the biomarkers were processed as indicated. The means ± SEM are illustrated. *P < 0.05 (#P < 0.07) using the Wilcoxon matched pairs signed-rank test by comparison with NN.
Fig. 4Detection of CALPRO in the stools of NEC and non-NEC infants according to their gestation ages.
Stool samples analyzed were those collected in the period preceding NEC diagnosis and in matched non-NEC infants according to their gestational age. Simple linear regression was calculated with R2 squared = 0.023 and a slope considered nonsignificant.