Incidence of Retinopathy of Prematurity in Early Onset Neonatal Sepsis
Le résumé fourni par la source
Background: Retinopathy of prematurity (ROP) is a leading cause of visual impairment in premature neonates. Early-onset neonatal sepsis, has been identified as a potential contributing factor to the incidence of ROP. Aim of the study: The aim of this study was to assess the incidence of retinopathy of prematurity in early onset neonatal sepsis. Methods: This cross-sectional study was conducted in Department of Ophthamology and Neonatal Intensive Care Unit (NICU), Dr. Sirajul Islam Medical College & Hospital Ltd., Dhaka, Bangladesh from June 2022 to July 2024. Total 300 preterm neonates with ROP were included in this study. Then, they were divided into two groups- group A: 150 patients with early onset neonatal sepsis and group B: 150 patients with late onset neonatal sepsis. Result: The mean gestational age in Group A was significantly lower (28.9 ± 2.3 weeks) than Group B (30.1 ± 2.2 weeks) (p < 0.01). Maternal infections were higher in Group A (50%). Oxygen therapy duration was longer in Group A (14 ± 3 days) than in Group B (10 ± 2 days) (p < 0.01). Group A had more cases of ROP (70% vs. 57%, p = 0.02). Risk factors for ROP included gestational age <28 weeks (OR = 2.10), oxygen therapy (OR = 1.60), and mechanical ventilation (OR = 1.45). Conclusion: This study concludes that neonates with early-onset neonatal sepsis had higher incidence and severity of ROP, with key risk factors being low gestational age, prolonged oxygen therapy, mechanical ventilation, and maternal infections.
Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.
Le contrôle bibliographique ouvert
DOI retrouvé dans Crossref DOI retrouvé ; titre concordant.
- Titre Crossref
- Incidence of Retinopathy of Prematurity in Early Onset Neonatal Sepsis
- Date Crossref
- 28/10/2024
- Éditeur
- SASPR Edu International Pvt. Ltd
- Type
- journal-article
Ce recoupement confirme des métadonnées liées au DOI. Il ne confirme ni la méthode ni les conclusions de l’étude, et il ne compte pas comme une seconde source scientifique indépendante.