| Literature DB >> 34900854 |
Mengyang Yang1, Juan Du1, Qin Yang1, Wenyan Dou1, Min Jiang1, Mingyan Hei1.
Abstract
The aim of this study was to investigate the influence of family integrated care (FICare) on the intestinal microbiome of preterm infants with necrotizing enterocolitis and enterostomy. This was a prospective pilot study at Beijing Children's Hospital. Premature infants with an enterostomy who met the enrollment criteria were divided into the 2-week FICare and non-FICare groups (non-randomly). We collected their fecal samples and subjected the intestinal microbiomes to 16S rRNA gene sequencing. Operational taxonomic units (OTU) were analyzed to assess the intestinal microbiome richness, and we then carried out α-diversity, β-diversity, and species clustering analyses and a linear discriminant analysis (LDA) effect size (LEfSe) analysis to identify the differences in the microbial communities between the two groups. There were 12 patients enrolled in the study (FICare, n = 7; non-FICare, n = 5). There were no significant between-group differences in demographic characteristics, or in the relative abundances of phyla and genera. The major bacterial phyla were Proteobacteria, Firmicutes, and Actinobacteria, and Serratia, Enterococcus, Cronobacter, and Bifidobacterium dominated at the genus level. The α-diversity analysis indicated that the intestinal flora was more diverse in the non-FICare group than the FICare group (p < 0.05). However, most of the other indicators did not suggest a difference between the two groups. There was a high proportion of shared OTUs between the two groups, and the PCoA and clustering analyses indicated that the two groups were difficult to distinguish, indicating that the intestinal microbiomes were relatively similar between the groups. In summary, short-term FICare had no significant positive effect on the establishment of intestinal flora diversity in premature infants with necrotizing enterocolitis and enterostomy. The trial was registered in the Chinese Clinical Trial Registry (ChiCTR-OPN-17011801).Entities:
Keywords: enterostomy; family integrated care; intestinal microbiome; necrotizing enterocolitis; preterm infants
Year: 2021 PMID: 34900854 PMCID: PMC8662560 DOI: 10.3389/fped.2021.678254
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Pediatr ISSN: 2296-2360 Impact factor: 3.418
Figure 1Flowchart of patient enrollment.
Baseline data: Infant demographics and maternal characteristics.
|
|
|
| |
|---|---|---|---|
| Male sex, | 4 (57) | 3 (60) | 0.56 |
| Gestational age, week, median (IQR) | 31 (29.6–31.6) | 32 (29.7–32.3) | 0.45 |
| Birth weight, g, mean (SD) | 1510 (448.8) | 1614 (502.2) | 0.72 |
| Singleton, n (%) | 3 (43) | 3 (60) | 1 |
| Cesarean delivery, | 3 (43) | 4 (80) | 0.29 |
| Apgar <7 at 5 min, | 1 (14.3) | 1 (20) | 1 |
| Prolonged rupture of membranes >18 h, n (%) | 1 (14.3) | 2 (40) | 0.52 |
| Maternal age, year, mean (SD) | 30.3 (4.8) | 29.2 (4.2) | 0.69 |
| Complete antenatal corticosteroids, | 2 (29) | 2 (40) | 1 |
| Breastfeeding, | 6 (86) | 2 (40) | 0.20 |
| Maternal complications, | |||
| Hypertension | 2 (29) | 0 | 0.03 |
| Gestational diabetes | 0 | 1 (20) | 0.42 |
| Thyroid dysfunction | 0 | 0 | |
| (Suspected) sepsis | 0 | 2 | 0.15 |
| Main diagnosis of infants (except NEC and prematurity), | |||
| Respiratory distress syndrome | 7 (100) | 5 (100) | - |
| Perinatal asphyxia | 3 (43) | 1 (20) | 0.58 |
| (Suspected) sepsis | 0 | 1 (20) | 0.42 |
| Hypoglycemia | 0 | 0 | |
| Pneumonia | 2 (29) | 1 (20) | 1 |
| Age at the start of enteral feeding, d, median(IQR) | 2 (2, 4) | 2 (2, 8) | 0.39 |
| Age at NEC diagnosis, d, mean (SD) | 14 (4) | 12.6 (8.8) | 0.72 |
| Age at enterostomy, d, mean (SD) | 13.3 (6.5) | 17 (8.2) | 0.40 |
| Duration of supplemental oxygen, d, mean (SD) | 28.4 (19.5) | 17.8 (11.4) | 0.30 |
| Duration of antibiotic use, d, mean (SD) | 17.6 (6.8) | 10.8 (3.6) | 0.07 |
| Weight at discharge, g, mean (SD) | 2155 (88.5) | 2295 (178.6) | 0.10 |
Figure 2(A) OTU Venn diagram (B) principal component analysis score plots of fecal microbial composition within the case and control group. The first and second component are shown on the x- and y-axis.
Figure 3The structure and relative abundance of the flora in the two groups at the Phylum level (A) and the genus level (B). The structure and relative abundance in each sample at the phylum level (C) and the genus level (D).
Proportions of intestinal flora phyla in fecal samples in the two groups.
|
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|---|
| FICare | 60.92 ± 9.67 | 30.02 ± 9.65 | 9.06 ± 3.8 |
| Non-FICare | 48.57 ± 8.95 | 38.86 ± 8.30 | 12.54 ± 3.71 |
| p value | 0.33 | 0.46 | 0.53 |
Proportions of intestinal flora genera in fecal samples in the two groups.
|
|
|
|
|
| |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| FICare (7) | 39.71 ± 10.52 | 19.61 ± 8.69 | 13.02 ± 5.31 | 0.05 (0,14.61) | 1.3 (0.095,4.415) | 0.24 (0,2.985) | 0.01 (0.005,1.35) |
| Non -FICare (5) | 35.91 ± 8.16 | 19.28 ± 6.90 | 8.43 ± 3.59 | 5.05 (0.025,19.5825) | 0.28 (0.0175,2.0375) | 1.215 (0.1,11.215) | 0.005 (0,8.0925) |
| 0.777 | 0.976 | 0.474 | 0.195 | 0.134 | 0.134 | 0.443 |
Expressed as median (lower quartile, upper quartile) and analyzed using non-parametric tests.
False discovery rate (FDR) analysis of differences in abundances between the two groups.
|
|
|
|
| |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|
| |||
|
| 0.000069 | 0.000048 | 0 | 0 | 0.000131 | 0.003825 |
|
| ||||||
|
| ||||||
|
| 0.000069 | 0.000069 | 0 | 0 | 0.000131 | 0.003825 |
|
| 0.001783 | 0.000987 | 0 | 0 | 0.002997 | 0.043758 |
|
| 0 | 0 | 0.005179 | 0.002587 | 0.002997 | 0.043758 |
|
| ||||||
|
| 0.000304 | 0.000154 | 0.000005 | 0.000005 | 0.004995 | 0.058344 |
|
| 0.005427 | 0.00308 | 0.000223 | 0.000109 | 0.007992 | 0.077792 |
|
| 0.001439 | 0.000565 | 0.000135 | 0.000098 | 0.011988 | 0.100019 |
Figure 4(A) LEfSe cladogram, the diameter of each circle is proportional to the abundance. (B) Histogram of the LDA scores for diferentially abundant features among groups.
LDA effect sizes.
|
|
|
|
| |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Bacteria.Firmicutes.Bacilli.Bacillales | 3.2233 | Non-FICare | 2.9327 | 0.0283 |
| Bacteria.Firmicutes.Bacilli.Bacillales.Staphylococcaceae | 3.1580 | Non-FICare | 3.1052 | 0.0088 |
| Bacteria.Firmicutes.Bacilli.Bacillales.Staphylococcaceae.Staphylococcus | 3.1580 | Non-FICare | 3.1033 | 0.0088 |
| Bacteria.Firmicutes.Clostridia.Clostridiales.Clostridiaceae_1.Clostridium_sensu_stricto_1 | 3.7140 | FICare | 3.4468 | 0.0067 |
| Bacteria.Proteobacteria.Gammaproteobacteria.Enterobacteriales.Enterobacteriaceae.Hafnia | 3.2512 | Non-FICare | 2.9684 | 0.0023 |
| Bacteria.Proteobacteria.Gammaproteobacteria.Enterobacteriales.Enterobacteriaceae.Yersinia | 2.4929 | Non-FICare | 2.5225 | 0.0077 |
| Bacteria.Proteobacteria.Gammaproteobacteria.Pseudomonadales.Moraxellaceae | 3.7364 | Non-FICare | 3.5304 | 0.0229 |
| Bacteria.Proteobacteria.Gammaproteobacteria.Pseudomonadales.Moraxellaceae.Acinetobacter | 3.7351 | Non-FICare | 3.5293 | 0.0239 |
Figure 5The heat map between bacterial community in two groups at the genus level.
Figure 6Beta diversity heat map (A) is weighted, (B) is unweighted.
Figure 7Cluster analysis diagram (A) is unweighted, (B) is weighted.
Alpha diversity statistical results.
|
|
|
| |
|---|---|---|---|
| Good's coverage | 0.9997 | 0.9996 | - |
| Observed OTUs | 18.94 ± 13.07 | 14.82 ± 8.62 | 0.305 |
| Chao | 21.79 ± 14.52 | 20.78 ± 13.52 | 0.882 |
| ACE | 26.60 ± 15.24 | 22.92 ± 12.17 | 0.843 |
| Simpson | 0.52 ± 0.28 | 0.70 ± 0.26 | 0.045 |
| Shannon | 0.99 ± 0.57 | 0.62 ± 0.20 | 0.045 |
Figure 8The rarefaction curve of samples.