The correlation between neonatal brain damage and perinatal infection: A Meta-analysis

doi:10.3969/j.issn.1004-583X.2022.06.003

Abstract

Abstract:

Objective To evaluate the correlation between neonatal brain damage and perinatal infection with Meta-analysis system, identify the cause of brain damage, intervene and treat newborns with brain damage to earliest convenience, and improve the prognosis of newborns. Methods The searched databases involving China Biology Medicine disc(CBM disc), CNKI, VIP, Wanfang, PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane Library and Embase were included,and the studies on effects of Perinatal infection on neonatal brain damage were included. The literature search was up to October 9, 2020. A fixed(random) effect model was utilized to combine findings of literatures, and then the odds ratio (OR value) and corresponding 95% confidence interval (CI) were calculated. The reasons for heterogeneity was sought, and potential publication bias was analyzed. Results A total of 14 articles are included, and all the articles are case-control studies. The results concluded from Meta-analysis show that the OR value of the gestational infectious group was 4.13[95%CI:3.18-5.37], OR value of maternal gestational infectious disease group was 9.15[95%CI:5.42-15.45], and OR value of the neonatal infection group is 3.04[95%CI:2.24-4.11]. Conclusion The risk of co-infection is significant when neonatal brain damage occurs, or the neonatal brain damage is related to perinatal infection.

Key words: brain damage, perinatal infection, inflammatory, neonatal, Meta-analysis

CLC Number:

R722.1

Wang Jie, Chen Baochang, Huang Jiayu, Meng Jinfeng, Li Shangbin, Yan Weichen, Zhao Qian, Li Jiao, Ren Changjun. The correlation between neonatal brain damage and perinatal infection: A Meta-analysis[J]. Clinical Focus, 2022, 37(6): 497-503.

Add to citation manager EndNote|Ris|BibTeX

URL: https://huicui.hebmu.edu.cn/EN/10.3969/j.issn.1004-583X.2022.06.003

https://huicui.hebmu.edu.cn/EN/Y2022/V37/I6/497

Figures/Tables 10

References 31

[1]	石晶, 母得志. 宫内感染与新生儿脑损伤[J]. 临床儿科杂志, 2015, 33(9): 767-770.
[2]	李丹妮, 唐军, 母得志. 宫内感染与新生儿脑损伤相关研究进展[J]. 中华新生儿科杂志, 2019, 34(1):66-70.
[3]	Sameshima H, Ikenoue T. Developmental effects on neonatal mortality and subsequent cerebral palsy in infants exposed to intrauterine infection[J]. Early Hum Dev, 2007, 83(8):517-519. pmid: 17196773
[4]	李星, 安妍, 范文娟. 78例早产儿脑损伤与产妇宫内感染及炎症因子的关系[J]. 贵州医药, 2020, 44(2):244-246.
[5]	张玲, 万俊, 王向烨, 王倩. 宫内感染及血清细胞因子水平与早产儿脑损伤的相关性分析[J]. 国际检验医学杂志, 2019, 40(23):2928-2930.
[6]	刘玉凤, 蔡江云, 史春, 等. 宫内感染与早产儿脑损伤的关系研究[J]. 中华医院感染学杂志, 2016, 26(13):3109-3111.
[7]	张正杨, 张永峰, 张芳. 宫内感染与早产儿脑损伤临床研究[J]. 潍坊医学院学报, 2018, 6:444-446.
[8]	夏世文, 周茜茜, 胡玉莲, 等. 宫内感染早产儿血清及脑脊液炎性因子与脑损伤的关系[J]. 中华实用儿科临床杂志, 2015, 30(18):1425-1427.
[9]	钟鑫琪, 崔其亮, 虞康惠. 围产期炎症与早产儿脑损伤的关系[J]. 中华围产医学杂志, 2015, 18(6):467-469.
[10]	王志红. 新生儿宫内TORCH感染与脑损伤临床研究[J]. 临床合理用药杂志, 2012, 5(2):97-97.
[11]	裘艳梅, 侯洪涛, 叶秀春, 等. 早产儿脑损伤早期相关高危因素分析[J]. 中国妇幼保健, 2017, 32(6):1200-1202.
[12]	周雄飞, 万志婷, 郑君. 早产儿早期脑白质损伤与母亲孕期感染的相关性分析[J]. 中国妇幼保健, 2015, 30(17):2774-2775.
[13]	曲丽娟. 足月新生儿脑损伤相关因素临床分析[D]. 大连医科大学, 2018:1-36.
[14]	于江波, 冯亮, 汪汝军. 脑损伤早产儿的头颅MR检查结果及导致新生儿脑损伤的高危因素分析[J]. 世界复合医学, 2020, 6(7):28-30.
[15]	洪昆峣. 脑损伤早产儿头颅MR诊断及高危因素分析[J]. 临床合理用药杂志, 2018, 11(10):156-157.
[16]	袁涛, 李俊瑶, 陈龙英. 235例早产儿脑损伤临床特征及影响因素分析[J]. 空军医学杂志, 2017, 33(4):254-256, 260.
[17]	吕红娟, 刘爱民, 吴媛. 围生期感染的相关指标测定对早产儿脑损伤的意义[J]. 中国优生与遗传杂志, 2006, 14(7):67-68.
[18]	曾宪涛, 刘慧, 陈曦, 等. Meta分析系列之四: 观察性研究的质量评价工具[J]. 中国循证心血管医学杂志, 2012, 4(4):297-299.
[19]	Hagberg H, Mallard C, Ferriero DM, et al. The role of inflammation in perinatal brain injury[J]. Nat Rev Neurol, 2015, 11(4):192-208. doi: 10.1038/nrneurol.2015.13 pmid: 25686754
[20]	朱文敏, 钟文娟, 徐波, 等. 我国早产儿脑损伤危险因素的Meta分析[J]. 中国妇幼保健, 2019, 34(13):3142-3144.
[21]	Nelson KB, Grether JK. Potentially asphyxiating conditions and spastic cerebral palsy in infants of normal birth weight[J]. Am J Obstet Gynecol, 1998, 179(2):507-513. pmid: 9731861
[22]	Coumans AB, Garnier Y, Supçun S, et al. The effects of low-dose endotoxin on the umbilicoplacental circulation in preterm sheep[J]. J Soc Gynecol Investig, 2004, 11(5):289-93. pmid: 15219882
[23]	Brown AG, Tulina NM, Barila GO, et al. Exposure to intrauterine inflammation alters Metabolomic profiles in the amniotic fluid, fetal and neonatal brain in the mouse[J]. PLoS One, 2017, 12(10):e0186656. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0186656 URL
[24]	Eklind S, Mallard C, Leverin AL, et al. Bacterial endotoxin sensitizes the immature brain to hypoxic--ischaemic injury[J]. Eur J Neurosci, 2001, 13(6):1101-1106. pmid: 11285007
[25]	Brown AG, Tulina NM, Barila GO, et al. Exposure to intrauterine inflammation alters Metabolomic profiles in the amniotic fluid, fetal and neonatal brain in the mouse[J]. PLoS One, 2017, 12(10):e0186656. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0186656 URL
[26]	杜乃熠, 刘兵, 张钊, 等. 3.0T磁共振SWI及MRS在新生儿HIE早期诊断中的应用价值[J]. 中国CT和MRI杂志, 2020, 18(3):89-92.
[27]	中华医学会儿科学分会围产专业委员会. 新生儿振幅整合脑电图临床应用专家共识[J]. 中华新生儿科杂志(中英文), 2019, 34(1):3-7.
[28]	杨杰, 郑璇儿. 新生儿宫内感染性疾病的防控[J]. 中华实用儿科临床杂志, 2020, 35(11):814-816.
[29]	Berger R, Söder S. Neuroprotection in preterm infants[J]. Biomed Res Int, 2015, 2015: 257139.
[30]	Ardolino LI, Meloni M, Brugali G, et al. Preclinical evaluation of tolerability of a selective, bacteriostatic, locally active vaginal formulation[J]. Curr Ther Res Clin Exp, 2016, 83:13-21. doi: 10.1016/j.curtheres.2016.07.002 URL
[31]	Paton MCB, McDonald CA, Allison BJ, et al. Perinatal brain injury as a consequence of preterm birth and intrauterine inflammation: Designing targeted stem cell therapies[J]. Front Neurosci, 2017, 11:200.

第一作者	发表年份	研究类型	样本量 (脑损伤组/非脑损伤组)	研究对象 (是否早产儿)	感染方式	结局指标
李星^[4]	2020	病例对照	78/82	是	1	1
张玲^[5]	2019	病例对照	56/107	是	1	1
刘玉凤^[6]	2016	病例对照	52/118	是	1	1
张正杨^[7]	2018	病例对照	31/55	是	1	1
夏世文^[8]	2015	病例对照	18/28	是	1	1
钟鑫琪^[9]	2015	病例对照	66/136	是	1/3	1/3
王志红^[10]	2012	病例对照	24/32	是	1	1
裘艳梅^[11]	2017	病例对照	45/50	是	1	1
周雄飞^[12]	2015	病例对照	70/140	是	2	2
曲丽娟^[13]	2018	病例对照	97/243	否	1/3	1/3
于江波^[14]	2020	病例对照	32/38	是	2	2
洪昆峣^[15]	2018	病例对照	97/123	是	2	2
袁涛^[16]	2017	病例对照	235/150	是	3	3
吕红娟^[17]	2006	病例对照	26/30	是	1/3	1/3

第一作者	发表年份	研究类型	样本量 (脑损伤组/非脑损伤组)	研究对象 (是否早产儿)	感染方式	结局指标
李星^[4]	2020	病例对照	78/82	是	1	1
张玲^[5]	2019	病例对照	56/107	是	1	1
刘玉凤^[6]	2016	病例对照	52/118	是	1	1
张正杨^[7]	2018	病例对照	31/55	是	1	1
夏世文^[8]	2015	病例对照	18/28	是	1	1
钟鑫琪^[9]	2015	病例对照	66/136	是	1/3	1/3
王志红^[10]	2012	病例对照	24/32	是	1	1
裘艳梅^[11]	2017	病例对照	45/50	是	1	1
周雄飞^[12]	2015	病例对照	70/140	是	2	2
曲丽娟^[13]	2018	病例对照	97/243	否	1/3	1/3
于江波^[14]	2020	病例对照	32/38	是	2	2
洪昆峣^[15]	2018	病例对照	97/123	是	2	2
袁涛^[16]	2017	病例对照	235/150	是	3	3
吕红娟^[17]	2006	病例对照	26/30	是	1/3	1/3

检验方法	宫内感染组早产儿亚组
Begg's Test	0.048
Egger's test	0.019

检验方法	宫内感染组早产儿亚组
Begg's Test	0.048
Egger's test	0.019