Next Article in Journal
Assessment of Individual and Mixed Effects of Six Minerals on Thyroid Hormones in Chinese Pregnant Women
Next Article in Special Issue
Plant-Derived Substances for Prevention of Necrotising Enterocolitis: A Systematic Review of Animal Studies
Previous Article in Journal
Bone Remodelling, Vitamin D Status, and Lifestyle Factors in Spanish Vegans, Lacto-Ovo Vegetarians, and Omnivores
Previous Article in Special Issue
The Umbilical Cord Creatine Flux and Time Course of Human Milk Creatine across Lactation
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Nutrients
Volume 16
Issue 3
10.3390/nu16030449
nutrients-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Early Extra-Uterine Growth Restriction in Very-Low-Birth-Weight Neonates with Normal or Mildly Abnormal Brain MRI: Effects on a 2–3-Year Neurodevelopmental Outcome

by
Paolo Massirio
1,*,
Marcella Battaglini
1,2,
Irene Bonato
1,
Sara De Crescenzo
1,2,
Maria Grazia Calevo
3,
Mariya Malova
1,
Samuele Caruggi
1,2,
Alessandro Parodi
1,
Deborah Preiti
4,
Agata Zoia
1,4,
Sara Uccella
2,5,
Domenico Tortora
6,
Mariasavina Severino
6,
Andrea Rossi
6,7,
Cristina Traggiai
8,
Lino Nobili
2,5,
Pasquale Striano
2,9 and
Luca Antonio Ramenghi
1,2
1
Neonatal Intensive Care Unit, Maternal and Neonatal Department, IRCCS Istituto Giannina Gaslini, 16147 Genoa, Italy
2
Department of Neurosciences, Rehabilitation, Ophthalmology, Genetics, Maternal and Child Health (DINOGMI), University of Genoa, 16132 Genoa, Italy
3
Epidemiology and Biostatistic Unit, Scientific Direction, IRCCS Istituto Giannina Gaslini, 16147 Genoa, Italy
4
Psychology Unit, IRCCS Istituto Giannina Gaslini, 16147 Genoa, Italy
5
Child Neuropsychiatry Unit, IRCCS Istituto Giannina Gaslini, 16147 Genoa, Italy
6
Neuroradiology Unit, IRCCS Istituto Giannina Gaslini, 16147 Genoa, Italy
7
Department of Health Sciences (DISSAL), University of Genoa, 16132 Genoa, Italy
8
Neonatology Unit, International Evangelical Hospital, 16122 Genoa, Italy
9
Paediatric Neurology and Muscle Disease Unit, IRCCS Istituto Giannina Gaslini, 16147 Genoa, Italy
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Nutrients 2024, 16(3), 449; https://doi.org/10.3390/nu16030449
Submission received: 30 December 2023 / Revised: 26 January 2024 / Accepted: 1 February 2024 / Published: 3 February 2024
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Recent Developments in Perinatal-Preterm and Term-Neonatal Nutrition—Physiology, New Hypothesis and Interventions)
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Extra-uterine growth restriction (EUGR) is a common complication and a known risk factor for impaired development in very-low-birth-weight (VLBW) neonates. We report a population of 288 patients with no or with low-grade MRI lesions scanned at a term equivalent age (TEA) born between 2012 and 2018. Griffiths Mental Development Scale II (GMDS II) at 2 and 3 years, preterm complications and weight growth were retrospectively analyzed. EUGR was defined for weight z-score ˂ 10 percentile at TEA, 6 and 12 months of correct age or as z-score decreased by 1-point standard deviation (SDS) from birth to TEA and from TEA to 6 months. Multivariate analysis showed that a higher weight z-score at 6 months is protective for the global developmental quotient (DQ) at 2 years (OR 0.74; CI 95% 0.59–0.93; p = 0.01). EUGR at 6 months was associated with worse locomotor, personal/social, language and performance DQ at 2 years and worse language and practical reasoning DQ at 3 years. In conclusion, a worse weight z-score at 6 months of age seems to be an independent risk factor for significantly reduced GMDS in many areas. These results suggest that we should invest more into post-discharge nutrition, optimizing family nutritional education.

1. Introduction

The survival rate in preterm babies, particularly for very-low-birth-weight (VLBW, with birth weight < 1500 g) preterm infants, has drastically increased over the years [1,2,3]. However, the incidence of neurological sequelae like cerebral palsy, cognitive impairment and developmental co-ordination disorder has remained high due to increased survival at a lower gestational age [4,5,6]. Neurodevelopment can be affected by several neonatal complications in preterm babies.
Extra-uterine growth restriction (EUGR) is a common complication in preterm infants [7] and is commonly considered a risk factor for poor development. It is defined as “cross-sectional” when the patient weights below a specific cut-off at a specific time point [8] or “longitudinal” when there is a growth deficit from birth concerning another defined time point [9,10]. Its incidence varies from 13% to 97% in different populations and according to relative definitions [11]. In addition, Ehrenkranz RA et al. observed an increase in the incidence of cerebral palsy, abnormal mental development index and psychomotor development index, as well as neurodevelopment impairment, in patients with EUGR during NICU hospitalization in a large population of ELBW infants [12]. Furthermore, Guellec I et al. demonstrated an increased risk of cerebral palsy in “longitudinal” EUGR between birth and 6 months in a large population of neonates from the EPIPAGE study cohort [13]. Therefore, despite the influence of EUGR in neurodevelopment being widely shared, there is no univocal agreement on which its definition and time point better predict the neurological outcome [10]. Furthermore, the most important studies do not consider MRIs, which is the gold standard to define a diagnosis, including minor brain lesions often missed at ultrasounds [14,15].
The nutritional strategy adopted in the NICU can play an important role not only in the prevention of EUGR but also in the neurological development of patients with VLBW. In particular, the use of fortified breast milk or, as a second choice, enriched formulas for premature infants for enteral nutrition and the early start of parenteral nutrition appear to have a positive impact on the neonates’ neurodevelopment. However, there is lack of evidence regarding the role of post-discharge nutrition [16].
Major brain lesions like cystic periventricular leukomalacia (PVL), germinal matrix-intraventricular hemorrhage (GMH-IVH) complicated by periventricular hemorrhagic venous infraction (PVHI), or post-hemorrhagic ventricular distension (PHVD) and massive cerebellar hemorrhage (CBH) are strongly associated with important neurological impairment [17,18,19,20,21,22,23]. The roles of minor lesions like low-grade GMH-IVH, punctate white matter lesions (PWMLs) and micro CBH are still debated, although some recent works seems to be associated with an impaired neurological development [24,25].
Furthermore, other neonatal complications can play a role in developing neurological sequelae in preterm babies, particularly hypoxia at birth [26], neonatal sepsis [27], necrotizing enterocolitis (NEC) [28,29], bronchopulmonary dysplasia [30,31,32] and surgical procedures [33,34].
The primary aim of our study is to define if EUGR can be an independent prognostic factor for a neurological outcome in preterm neonates with VLBW with negative or minor brain lesions at MRI. Furthermore, the secondary aim of this study is to identify if there is a more sensitive time point of EUGR diagnosis that can predict neurological outcomes more optimally.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Population and Data Collection

All infants with VLBW consecutively admitted to Neonatal Intensive Care Unit of IRCSS Giannina Gaslini Institute who underwent routine brain MRI at term-equivalent age from January 2012 to December 2018 were selected for this study. As per standard internal protocol, MRI scans were performed at term-equivalent age (TEA, between 38 and 42 weeks post-menstrual age) as a part of the screening program for identification of prematurity-related lesions. “Feed and wrap” technique was used to perform the MRI [35]. The need for sedation (oral midazolam, 0.1 mg/kg) to prevent head motion was agreed with by the neuro-radiologist case by case. Scans were performed with a 1.5 Tesla MR system (InteraAchieva 2.6; Philips, Best, The Netherlands) using a dedicated pediatric head/spine coil. Our institutional standard MRI protocol included 3 mm thick axial T2-weighted and T1-weighted images, coronal T2-weighted images, sagittal T1-weighted images, axial diffusion-weighted images (b value:1000 s/mm2) and axial SWI (susceptibility-weighted imaging), which is the gold standard to identify hemosiderin and low-grade hemorrhage [14]. Patients with major brain lesions such as periventricular leukomalacia (PVL), periventricular hemorrhagic infarction (PVHI), post-hemorrhagic ventricular distention (PHVD) and massive-limited CBH [23]—known to significantly affect neurological outcome—or with congenital brain malformations were excluded from this study. Patients with minor brain lesions such as low-grade GMH-IVH (I-II grade for Volpe’s Classification [20]), punctate white matter lesions (PWMLs) [24] or micro-CBH were included [21].
Demographic and clinical data of the enrolled patients were extracted from clinical charts. Collected data included birth weight, gestational age, sex, mode of delivery, Apgar at 5th minute, diagnosis of neonatal complications (sepsis, NEC and BPD), need of major surgery and breast milk feeding at TEA. Neonatal sepsis was defined by the need for antibiotic therapy for clinical and laboratory findings suggesting blood infection. NEC was defined by clinical and imaging signs suggesting enterocolitis. BPD was defined by the need of any ventilatory support or O2 supplementation at 36 weeks. MRI data were collected, and patients were divided into two groups comprising patients with normal MRI and patients with minor brain lesions, like the very mild hemorrhages identified with susceptibility-weighted imaging [14,15].
Anthropometric data were collected by clinical charts of patients enrolled in our preterm follow-up service. During the hospital stay, weight was measured daily; after discharge, it was measured at term-equivalent age (TEA) and 1, 3, 6, 9 and 12 months of correct age. We collected only weight at birth, at TEA, and 6 and 12 months of corrected age for the statistical analysis. Z-scores of weights for age and sex were calculated for birth and TEA using INTERGROWTH-21 relatives charts for very low weight at birth [36] and postnatal growth standard in preterm infants [37], while for 6 and 12 months of correct age, we used CDC Growth Charts, 2000 [38]. Patients who were lost in the follow-up phase or with incomplete anthropometric data were excluded from this study.
The patients with birth weight z-score < 1.282 (<10° percentile) were considered small for gestational age (SGA). Extra-uterine growth restriction (EUGR) at TEA and 6 months was diagnosed by two different definitions: “cross-sectional” EUGR as a weight z-score < 1.282 (<10° percentile) and “longitudinal” EUGR as z-score decreased by 1-point SDS from birth to TEA and from TEA to 6 months [39]. A weight with z-score < 1.282 (<10° percentile) was also defined as EUGR at 12 months of correct age.
The neurological development evaluation of patients was performed with Griffiths Mental Developmental Scale II (GMDS II) [40] at two years of corrected age and three years of chronological age. Patients lost in the follow-up phase were excluded from this study. Patients who did not perform the 3 years assessment were included. These evaluations are part of routine follow-up service offered to all patients with VLBW after discharge from the hospital. GMDS was administered by a 10-year experienced single operator blinded to MRI results. Raw numbers were converted into standardized development quotients (DQs). Total development quotients (DQs), relating to global development, were derived from the mean of the results of different areas of assessment: locomotor and gross motor skills (scale A); personal/social and adaptive behavior development (scale B); receptive/expressive language (scale C); fine motor function and hand–eye coordination (scale D); performance as precursors of reasoning and planning (scale E); and practical reasoning (scale F, performed only at 3 years of age). Resulting values were used to evaluate the level of neurodevelopment: values below 70 define a developmental delay, values from 70 to 84 evidence a borderline condition and values above 84 are considered normal [40].

2.2. Statistical Analysis

Descriptive statistics were generated for the whole cohort; data were expressed as the mean and standard deviation for continuous variables and absolute and relative frequencies for categorical variables. All collected demographic and clinical data were compared using the chi-squared test or Fisher’s exact test and the Mann–Whitney U test for categorical and continuous variables. Univariate analysis determined the potential risk factors which were significantly associated with unsatisfactory scores in the GMDS (<85) at 2 and 3 years of CA. Logistic regression analysis was used for each variable, and odds ratios (ORs) were calculated with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). The absence of exposure to the factor or the variable that was less likely to be associated with the risk was used as a reference for each analysis. Multivariate analysis corrected for gestational age (GA) was then performed. The only variables that proved to be statistically or borderline significant in the univariate analysis (<0.08) were included in the model. The best-fit model was based on the backward stepwise selection procedures, and each variable was removed if it did not contribute significantly. In the final model, a p-value of <0.05 was considered statistically significant, and all p-values were based on two-tailed tests. Statistical analysis was performed using the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences for Windows (SPSS 29 - 2022, Sept. Inc., Chicago, IL, USA).
The studies involving human participants were reviewed and approved by Giannina Gaslini Hospital, Genoa, Italy. Written informed consent to participate in this study was provided by the participants’ legal guardian/next of kin.

3. Results

3.1. Main Population Description

In total, 498 very-low-birth-weight neonates underwent brain MRIs from January 2012 to December 2018 (mean GA 28.7 ± 2.3; mean birth weight 1081 g ± 265 g). Of these patients, 65 were excluded for severe brain lesions, 18 for incidental findings of brain malformations and congenital diseases, and 127 for incomplete follow-up or missing data.
The final population included 288 patients. Mean GA was 28.9 ± 2.1 weeks (range 23–34.6), with a mean birth weight of 1097 ± 255 g (z-score −0.449 ± 1.09; range 435–1490 g). Of these, 139 patients (48.3%) were male. The incidence of SGA was 21.5% (62 patients). Moreover, 232 neonates were born via a cesarean delivery (80.6%), and mean Apgar score at 5 min was 8 (range 2–10). Regarding the major neonatal complications of preterm, incidence of sepsis was 37.5% (n = 108), and NEC was present in 30 patients (10.4%), with 15 of these having to undergo surgical treatment. A total of 36 patients (12.5%) underwent surgery before discharge (15 for NEC, 17 for patent ductus arteriosus, PDA). The MRI study at term age (TEA) showed that 101 patients had low-grade lesions (35.1%). Of these, 44 patients had low-grade IVH (15.3%), 47 had punctate lesions of white matter (16.3%) and 31 had micro-CBH (10.8%). At term age, only 17% (n = 49) were fed by breast milk exclusively, and 41% were fed only with formula milk. The mean weight at TEA was 2600 ± 598 g (range 1140–4180 g), the mean z-score for weight was −1.407 ± 1.415 and 50% (n = 144) had a “cross-sectional” EUGR. The incidence of “longitudinal” birth to TEA was 43.8% (n = 126). At 6 months of age, the mean weight was 6.81 ± 1.03 kg, z-score −1.24 ± 1.29 and the incidence of patients with a “cross-sectional” EUGR was 46.2% (n = 133), while the rate of the “longitudinal” EUGR from TEA to 6 months was 16.0% (n = 46). At 12 months of age, the mean weight was 8.78 ± 1.16 kg, z-score −1.36 ± 1.25, and the incidence of patients with a “cross-sectional” EUGR was 48.3% (n = 139) (Table 1).

3.2. Neurological Outcome and Statistical Analysis

In relation to the long-term neurological outcomes, the global DQ evaluated with Griffiths Scale II was <85 in 56 patients of the total 288 at 2 years of age (19.4%). Considering the different rating areas of the Griffiths Scale II separately, the incidence of development delay or borderline (DQ < 85) was 23.6% for locomotor, 23.2% for personal/social; 44.1% for hearing and language, 13.2% for hand–eye coordination and 24.3% for performance. At 3 years of age, the global DQ Griffiths scale was <85 in 100 of the 262 patients (26 patients were lost in the follow-up phase) with an incidence of 38.2%. Considering the different rating areas separately, the incidence of development delay or borderline (DQ < 85) was 31.7% for locomotor, 33.2% for personal/social; 53.0% for hearing and language, 31.6% for hand–eye coordination, 48.1% for performance and 38.5% for practical reasoning (Table 2).
Considering the risk factors for worse neurological outcomes at 2 years, the univariate analysis showed that patients scoring below 85 on the Griffiths Scale II had a lower weight z-score at 6 (−1.639 vs. 1.140 p = 0.03) and 12 months (−1.735 vs. −1.264 p = 0.03) than patients with normal results on the Griffiths assessment, and the incidence of patients with a “cross-sectional” EUGR at 6 months was higher and not statistically significant in patients with developmental delay or borderline global DQ on the Griffiths scale (58.9 vs. 43.5%; p = 0.07). Furthermore, the incidence of surgical NEC appears to be higher in patients with development delay or borderline global DQ (10.7% vs. 3.9%; p = 0.08). Based on these data, multivariate analysis adjusted for gestational age showed that a higher z-score for weight at 6 months would be protective for a global DQ deficit at 2 years of age (OR 0.74; CI 0.59–0.93; p = 0.01) (Table 3).
The same analysis was performed separately for the different rating areas of the Griffiths Scale II. The results of the multivariate analysis are resumed in Table 4. Considering the locomotor area (scale A), the multivariate analysis showed that the “cross-sectional” EUGR at 6 months (OR 1.96; CI 95% 1.10–3.47; p = 0.02), punctate white matter lesions (PWMLs) (OR 2.33; CI 95% 1.15–4.71; p = 0.02) and major surgery during NICU stay (OR 3.79; CI 95% 1.69–8.49; p = 0.001) were a negative prognostic factor. Considering the personal/social area (scale B), the “cross-sectional” EUGR at 6 months (OR 1.94; CI 95%; 1.12–3.37; p = 0.02) and NEC (OR 2.6; CI 95% 1.14–5.92; p = 0.02) are the major risk factors. Considering the hearing and language areas (scale C), the multivariate analysis identified higher birth weight z-scores (OR 0.31; CI 95% 0.12–0.81; p = 0.02) as a protective factor, while the presence of NEC (OR 2.48; CI 95% 1.07–5.71; p = 0.03) and “cross-sectional” EUGR at 6 months (OR 1.87; CI 1.05–3.29; p = 0.02) were also confirmed as negative prognostic factors. Considering hand–eye coordination assessment (scale D), NEC was also a negative prognostic factor (OR 3.98; CI 1.66–9.55; p = 0.002). Lastly, considering performance area (scale E), male sex (OR 2.01; CI 95% 1.13–3.57; p = 0.02), major surgery (OR 4.07: CI 95% 1.78–9.33; p = 0.001), punctate white matter lesions at MRI (OR 2.03; CI 95% 1.00–4.14; p = 0.05) and “longitudinal” EUGR at 6 months (OR 2.10; CI 95% 1.03–4.30; p = 0.04) seemed to be negative prognostic factors (Table 4).
Regarding the neurological outcome at 3 years of age, the Griffiths Scale II was applied only in 262 of the 288 patients because 26 patients were lost in the follow-up phase. The univariate analysis showed a major incidence in the Griffiths score of <85 in the male babies (60% vs. 43.2%; p = 0.01) and patients with NEC (17% vs. 7.4%; p = 0.02), while normal Griffiths had a higher incidence in patients born via cesarean delivery (76% vs. 85.2%; p = 0.05). Based on these data, the multivariate analysis adjusted for gestational age showed that only male sex (OR 1.94; CI 95% 1.16–3.24; p = 0.01) and NEC (OR 2.55; CI 95% 1.11–5.86; p = 0.03) were independent negative prognostic factors for worse global DQ at 3 years (Table 5).
Considering the areas of the Griffith Scale II at 3 years separately, the multivariate analysis showed that, considering locomotor area (scale A), male sex was a negative prognostic factor (OR 1.82; CI 95% 1.07–3.10; p = 0.03). Considering the personal social area (scale B), male sex was a negative prognostic factor (OR 2.18; CI 95% 1.28–3.72; p = 0.004) while cesarean delivery seemed to be a protective factor (OR 0.47; CI 95% 0.25–0.91; p = 0.02). Considering hearing and language area (scale C), “cross-sectional” EUGR at 6 months (OR 1.63; CI 95% 0.99–2.68; p = 0.05) and male sex (OR 1.88; CI 95% 1.14–3.10; p = 0.01) seemed to be the only negative prognostic factors. Considering hand–eye coordination (scale D) and performance (scale E), the major risk factors seemed to be male sex (OR 4.17; CI 95% 1.78–9.76; p = 0.001—OR 2.39; CI 95% 1.44–3.97; p = 0.001, respectively and NEC (OR 4.17; CI 95% 1.78–9.76; p = 0.001—OR 4.31; CI 95% 1.63–11.35; p = 0.003, respectively). Considering practical reasoning (scale F), only “longitudinal” EUGR at 6 months (OR 2.07; CI 95% 1.02–4.17; p = 0.04) and NEC (OR 4.47; CI 95% 1.84–10.85; p = 0.001) seemed to be significant (Table 6).

4. Discussion

EUGR is already considered a risk factor for worse global mental development [7,8,9,10,11,12]. In our population, we found a high incidence of EUGR, particularly at TEA (Table 1). Despite this, EUGR at TEA (both “cross-sectional” and “longitudinal”) did not show an impact on GMDS at 2 and 3 years, while “cross-sectional” EUGR at 6 months seemed to be associated with a worse neurodevelopment for some areas of GMDS at 2 and 3 years, particularly for 2 y locomotor, 2 y personal/social and 2–3 y language (Table 4 and Table 6) development. “Longitudinal” EUGR from TEA to 6 months of CA was associated with a worse GMDS in 2 y performance and 3 y practical reasoning (Table 4 and Table 6). Furthermore, we showed that a better weight z-score at 6 months is protective for developmental delay and borderline global GMDS at 2 years of age (Table 3). The time point at 6 months was not taken into consideration in recent existing studies; in particular, Zozaya et al. compared “longitudinal” and “cross-sectional” EUGR at 36 weeks of CA [8], and De Rose et al. compared 48 definitions of EUGR—24 “cross-sectional” and 24 “longitudinal” at different time points from births to TEA [10]. Furthermore, the above-mentioned studies did not consider MRI data as an influencing factor for the outcome.
A result similar to ours was published by Guellec I et al. as part of the EPIPAGE study. They demonstrated an association between “longitudinal” EUGR from birth to 6 months of age and cerebral palsy at 5 years in patients born appropriate for gestational age AGA and with cognitive deficiency and school difficulties in SGA at 5–8 years, even if not significantly [13]. This study, although extremely cited, also did not consider analyzing lesions with MRI to predict the neurological follow-up for their subjects.
Our results reinforce the focus on not only the EUGR but to post-discharge growth, focusing again on the feeding problems of neonates with VLBW. Indeed, although there are evidence-based recommendations on VLBW nutrition in hospitals [41], little is known about the optimal nutrition instructions after discharge and also the introduction of solid food (referred to as weaning) guidelines.
Regarding post-discharge nutrition, in our center, we recommend breast milk feeding. Exclusive post-discharge breastfeeding is rarely possible in our preterm babies, so the initial indication is to feed them with unfortified breast milk via a bottle for a hydric quotient of 160 up to 200 mL/kg per day. In the absence of breast milk, a post-discharge formula is prescribed for an energy quotient of between 120 and 140 kcal/kg/day until TEA and 3000 g of weight are reached; then, it is replaced with common formula milk for an energy quotient of between 110 and 130 kcal/kg/day. These intakes are adjusted and individualized based on weight growth in the last weeks of hospital stay, the first few weeks post-discharge and depending on the presence of co-morbidities. Unfortunately, breast milk was available for 59% of the neonates, but only 17% were exclusively fed by breast milk at 40 weeks of CA in our population, which is a poor result that is similar to other studies [42]. There is a large consensus that breast milk represents the best choice due to its well-known positive effects on neurodevelopment and body composition [41,43,44,45,46]. The role of breast milk fortification and the choice of better formula milk after discharge is still controversial. As a matter of fact, two quite recent Cochrane meta-analyses did not provide evidence that the fortification of breast milk after hospital discharge or the use of post-discharge formula milk (enriched in protein, LCPUFA, and micronutrients) are able to differently affect the growth rates and neurodevelopmental outcomes of neonates [47,48,49]. Furthermore, with regard to nutrition in the immediate post-discharge period, the only intervention that shows encouraging results is to support and educate families to promote breast milk feeding [42].
Weaning is likely to be crucial for infantile nutrition and neurodevelopment [50,51], although there is great variability in time of introduction, micronutrient supplementation and types of foods proposed from center to center [52]. In our population, weaning started at 6 months of postnatal age (PA), according to the ESPHGAN indications [53]. In the literature, different timing for weaning was proposed from the results of various observational studies [54,55,56]. The few randomized controlled trials (RCTs) available in the literature do not report significant differences in weight growth when weaning is started at 4 vs. 6 months of age [57] or at 13 vs. 17 weeks of age, where an improvement in the body length at 12 months of age is the only result [58]. Only one recent RCT found that starting weaning in VLBW at 10–12 weeks of CA instead of 16–18 weeks of CA had positive effects on the weight z-score at 6 months [59]. None of these RCTs considered neurodevelopment as the primary outcome. The efficacy on the growth of this “early weaning policy” is still controversial and has poor evidence, as observed in different cohort studies [60,61], but it seems to be safe as it does not increase the risk of obesity [61,62] and food allergy or atopic dermatitis [63]. A recent systematic review by the Italian Societies of Pediatrics (SIP), Neonatology (SIN), and Paediatric Gastroenterology, Hepatology and Nutrition (SIGENP) tried to draw up recommendations for weaning in preterm infants and recommended to start weaning between 5 and 8 months of postnatal age and to consider a limit of 3 months of CA to ensure that newborn infants acquire appropriate developmental skills [64]. Based on our data and what is reported in the literature, we speculate that an early weaning policy at about 3 months of age, when developmental skills are acquired (i.e., between about 4 and 6 months of PA depending on GA), will be safe and could improve weight gain at 6 months and the neurological outcomes of patients with VLBW.
Data about the type of food proposed in weaning in preterm infants are lacking, so the guidelines used for term babies are those used for neonates too [53,65]. Interestingly, the Cochrane systematic review reports a decrease in the risk of undernutrition and growth improvements when the family of term babies receive adequate nutritional education, although the effects on neurodevelopment remain uncertain [66]. A similar study on the families of neonates was conducted but it did not provide any convincing evidence, although we can speculate that similar effects can be reached in preterm infants [67]. Proposing adequate nutritional education to families of preterm infants may improve the growth and neurodevelopment of these patients.
Lastly, other well-known risk factors like GA [4,5,6], male sex [68,69], NEC [28,29] and major surgeries [33,34] were identified and confirmed by our study as the risk factors for worse GMDS scores in different areas. Regarding MRI findings, in our population, PWML was confirmed to be a risk factor for worse GMDS scores, particularly for locomotor development (scale A) and performance (scale E) at 2 years, which is in agreement with previous findings [24]. PWML was not significant at 3 years of GA. This result deviates from our previous study due to the differences in the classification of MRI lesions, patient selection and statistical analyses [70].
The strengths of our study comprise the large population of neonates with VLBW up to 3 years of age and the comparisons made between the two groups: one with absolutely no brain lesions (at MRI) and the other with minor lesions whose long-term clinical significance remains understudied.

5. Conclusions

Our study confirms that extra-uterine growth restriction affects the neurological outcomes in preterm infants. EUGR diagnosed at 6 months of age seems to have a major negative impact on many areas of neurological development, more than those deriving from minor brain lesions that are almost exclusively diagnosed with MRI. Only periventricular white matter lesions show a significantly negative effect similar to EUGR, although this factor was restricted to locomotor development and performance and, exclusively, at 2 years follow-up. At 3 years of age, EUGR at 6 months maintained a negative effect on language development and practical reasoning. The issue of EUGR and nutrition during NICU stay is well known, and we cannot undervalue its importance on the outcomes of patients, but we believe that it is appropriate to focus more attention on post-discharge nutritional help by optimizing the nutritional education of families.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, P.M. and L.A.R.; methodology, P.M., M.B., I.B., S.D.C., A.P., D.P., A.Z., D.T., M.S., A.R., C.T. and L.A.R.; software, M.G.C.; validation, L.A.R.; formal analysis, M.G.C.; investigation, P.M., M.B. and I.B.; data curation, P.M., M.B., I.B., S.D.C. and M.G.C.; writing—original draft preparation, P.M. and L.A.R.; writing—review and editing, M.B., I.B., S.D.C., M.M., S.C., A.P., D.P., D.T., M.S., A.R. and P.S.; visualization, A.Z., S.U., C.T. and L.N.; supervision, P.S. and L.A.R. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

Work supported by #NEXTGENERATIONEU (NGEU) and funded by Ministry of University and Researc (MUR), National Recovery and Resilience Plan (NRRP), project MNESYS (PE0000006)—A multiscale integrated approach to the study of nervous system in health and disease (DN.1553 11.10.2022).

Institutional Review Board Statement

The Giannina Gaslini Hospital and the Local Ethical Committee (Comitato Etico Regione Liguria, Genoa, Italy) approved this retrospective observational study (227 20/04/2021). The participating patients’ parents provided informed consent. This investigation was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki.

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent that included statements about the significance and limitations of MRI at TEA was obtained in all cases.

Data Availability Statement

Original data are available upon request. The data are not publicly available due to internal privacy policy.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. World Health Organisation. Born Too Soon: The Global Action Report on Preterm Birth; World Health Organization: Geneva, Switzerland, 2012.
  2. Behrman, R.E.; Babson, G.S.; Lessel, R. Fetal and neonatal mortality in white middle class infants: Mortality risks by gestational age and weight. Am. J. Dis. Child 1971, 21, 486–489. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Platt, M.J. Outcomes in preterm infants. Public Health 2014, 128, 399–403. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Saigal, S.; Doyle, L.W. An overview of mortality and sequelae of preterm birth from infancy to adulthood. Lancet 2008, 371, 261–269. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Himpens, E.; Van den Broeck, C.; Oostra, A.; Calders, P.; Vanhaesebrouch, P. Prevalence, type, distribution and severity of cerebral palsy in relation to gestational age: A meta-analytical review. Dev. Med. Child Neurol. 2008, 50, 334–340. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Edwards, J.; Berube, M.; Erlandson, K.; Haug, S.; Johnstone, H.; Meagher, M.; Sarkodee-Ado, S.; Zwicker, J.G. Development coordination disorder in school-aged children born very preterm and/or low birth weight: A systemic review. J. Dev. Behav. Pediatr. 2011, 32, 678–687. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Clark, R.H.; Thomas, P.; Peabody, J. Extrauterine growth restriction remains a serious problem in prematurely born neonates. Pediatrics 2003, 111 Pt 1, 986–990. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Zozaya, C.; Díaz, C.; Saenz de Pipaón, M. How Should We Define Postnatal Growth Restriction in Preterm Infants? Neonatology 2018, 114, 177–180. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Roggero, P.; Giannì, M.L.; Orsi, A.; Amato, O.; Piemontese, P.; Liotto, N.; Morlacchi, L.; Taroni, F.; Garavaglia, E.; Bracco, B.; et al. Implementation of nutritional strategies decreasespostnatalgrowthrestriction in preterminfants. PLoS ONE 2012, 7, e5116. [Google Scholar]
  10. De Rose, D.U.; Cota, F.; Gallini, F.; Bottoni, A.; Fabrizio, G.C.; Ricci, D.; Romeo, D.M.; Mercuri, E.; Vento, G.; Maggio, L. Extra-uterine growthrestriction in preterminfants: Neurodevelopmentaloutcomesaccording to differentdefinitions. Eur. J. Paediatr. Neurol. 2021, 33, 135–145. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Martínez-Jiménez, M.D.; Gómez-García, F.J.; Gil-Campos, M.; Pérez-Navero, J.L. Comorbidities in childhood associated with extrauterine growth restriction in preterm infants: A scoping review. Eur. J. Pediatr. 2020, 179, 1255–1265. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Ehrenkranz, R.A.; Dusick, A.M.; Vohr, B.R.; Wright, L.L.; Wrage, L.A.; Poole, W.K. Growth in the neonatal intensive care unit influences neurodevelopmental and growth outcomes of extremely low birth weight infants. Pediatrics 2006, 117, 1253–1261. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Guellec, I.; Lapillonne, A.; Marret, S.; Picaud, J.C.; Mitanchez, D.; Charkaluk, M.L.; Fresson, J.; Arnaud, C.; Flamant, C.; Cambonie, G.; et al. Étude Épidémiologique sur les Petits ÂgesGestationnels (EPIPAGE; [Epidemiological Study on Small Gestational Ages]) Study Group. Effect of Intra- and Extrauterine Growth on Long-Term Neurologic Outcomes of Very Preterm Infants. J. Pediatr. 2016, 175, 93. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Parodi, A.; Morana, G.; Severino, M.S.; Malova, M.; Natalizia, A.R.; Sannia, A.; Rossi, A.; Ramenghi, L.A. Low-grade intraventricular hemorrhage: Is ultrasound good enough? J. Matern. Fetal Neonatal Med. 2015, 28 (Suppl. S1), 2261–2264. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Parodi, A.; Rossi, A.; Severino, M.; Morana, G.; Sannia, A.; Calevo, M.G.; Malova, M.; Ramenghi, L.A. Accuracy of ultrasound in assessing cerebellar haemorrhages in very low birthweight babies. Arch. Dis. Child Fetal Neonatal Ed. 2015, 100, F289–F292. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Belfort, M.B.; Ehrenkranz, R.A. Neurodevelopmental outcomes and nutritional strategies in very low birth weight infants. Semin. Fetal Neonatal Med. 2017, 22, 42–48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Bancker, B.Q.; Larroche, J.C. Periventricular leukomalacia of infancy. A form of neonatal anoxic encephalopathy. Arch. Neurol. 1962, 7, 386–410. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Krageloh-Mann, I.; Horber, V. The role of magnetic resonance imaging in elucidating the pathogenesis of cerebral palsy: A systematic review. Dev. Med. Child Neurol. 2007, 49, 144–151. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Woodward, L.J.; Clark, C.A.; Bora, S.; Inder, T.E. Neonatal white matter abnormalities an important predictor of neurocognitive outcome for very preterm children. PLoS ONE 2012, 7, 518–579. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Inder, T.; Perlman, J.; Volpe, J. Unit V—Intracranial hemorrhage. In Neurology of the Newborn, 6th ed.; Volpe, J.J., Inder, T.E., Darras, B.T., Eds.; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2018; pp. 591–698. [Google Scholar]
  21. Parodi, A.; Govaert, P.; Horsch, S.; Bravo, M.C.; Ramenghi, L.A.; eurUS.brain Group. Cranial ultrasound findings in preterm germinal matrix haemorrhage, sequelae and outcome. Pediatr. Res. 2020, 87 (Suppl. S1), 13–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. De Angelis, L.C.; Parodi, A.; Sebastiani, M.; Consales, A.; Ravegnani, G.M.; Severino, M.; Tortora, D.; Rossi, A.; Malova, M.; Minghetti, D.; et al. External ventricular drainage for posthemorrhagic ventricular dilatation in preterm infants: Insights on efficacy and failure. J. Neurosurg. Pediatr. 2021, 28, 563–571. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Boswinkel, V.; Steggerda, S.J.; Fumagalli, M.; Parodi, A.; Ramenghi, L.A.; Groenendaal, F.; Dudink, J.; Benders, M.N.; Knol, R.; de Vries, L.S.; et al. The CHOPIn Study: A Multicenter Study on Cerebellar Hemorrhage and Outcome in Preterm Infants. Cerebellum 2019, 18, 989–998. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Uccella, S.; Parodi, A.; Calevo, M.G.; Nobili, L.; Tortora, D.; Severino, M.; Andreato, C.; Group Eu-Brain Neonatal Rossi, A.; Ramenghi, L.A. Influence of isolated low-grade intracranial haemorrhages on the neurodevelopmental outcome of infants born very low birthweight. Dev. Med. Child Neurol. 2023. Online ahead of print. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. de Bruijn, C.A.M.; Di Michele, S.; Tataranno, M.L.; Ramenghi, L.A.; Rossi, A.; Malova, M.; Benders, M.; van den Hoogen, A.; Dudink, J. Neurodevelopmental consequences of preterm punctate white matter lesions: A systematic review. Pediatr. Res. 2023, 93, 1480–1490. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Kurinczuk, J.J.; White-Koning, M.; Badawi, N. Epidemiology of neonatal encephalopathy and hypoxic-ischaemic encephalopathy. Early Hum. Dev. 2012, 86, 329–338. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Bassler, D.; Stoll, B.J.; Schmidt, B.; Asztalos, E.V.; Roberts, R.S.; Robertson, C.M.; Sauve, R.S. rial of Indomethacin Prophylaxis in Preterms Investigators. Using a count of neonatal morbidities to predict poor outcome in extremely low birth weight infants: Added role of neonatal infection. Pediatrics 2009, 123, 313–318. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Soraisham, A.S.; Amin, H.J.; Al-Hindi, M.Y.; Singhal, N.; Sauve, R.S. Does necrotising enterocolitis impact the neurodevelopmental and growth outcomes in preterm infants with birthweight < or = 1250 g? J. Paediatr. Child Health 2006, 42, 499–504. [Google Scholar]
  29. Hickey, M.; Georgieff, M.; Ramel, S. Neurodevelopmental outcomes following necrotizing enterocolitis. Semin. Fetal Neonatal Med. 2018, 23, 426–432. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Gou, X.; Yang, L.; Pan, L.; Xiao, D. Association between bronchopulmonary dysplasia and cerebral palsy in children: A meta-analysis. BMJ Open 2018, 8, e020735. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Cheong, J.L.Y.; Doyle, L.W. An update on pulmonary and neurodevelopmental outcomes of bronchopulmonary dysplasia. Semin. Perinatol. 2018, 42, 478–484. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Poets, C.F.; Lorenz, L. Prevention of bronchopulmonary dysplasia in extremely low gestational age neonates: Current evidence. Arch. Dis. Child Fetal Neonatal Ed. 2018, 103, F285–F291. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Hunt, R.W.; Hickey, L.M.; Burnett, A.C.; Anderson, P.J.; Cheong, J.L.Y.; Doyle, L.W.; Victorian Infant Collaborative Study Group. Early surgery and neurodevelopmental outcomes of children born extremely preterm. Arch. Dis. Child Fetal Neonatal Ed. 2018, 103, F227–F232. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Tortora, D.; Severino, M.; Di Biase, C.; Malova, M.; Parodi, A.; Minghetti, D.; Traggiai, C.; Uccella, S.; Boeri, L.; Morana, G.; et al. Early Pain Exposure Influences Functional Brain Connectivity in Very Preterm Neonates. Front. Neurosci. 2019, 13, 899. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Antonov, N.K.; Ruzal-Shapiro, C.B.; Morel, K.D.; Millar, W.S.; Kashyap, S.; Lauren, C.T.; Garzon, M.C. Feed and Wrap MRI Technique in Infants. Clin. Pediatr. 2017, 56, 1095–1103. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Villar, J.; Giuliani, F.; Fenton, T.R.; Ohuma, E.O.; Ismail, L.C.; Kennedy, S.H. INTERGROWTH-21st very preterm size at birth reference charts. Lancet 2016, 387, 844–845. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Villar, J.; Giuliani, F.; Bhutta, Z.A.; Bertino, E.; Ohuma, E.O.; Ismail, L.C.; Barros, F.C.; Altman, D.G.; Victora, C.; Noble, J.A.; et al. Postnatal growth standards for preterm infants: The Preterm Postnatal Follow-up Study of the INTERGROWTH-21st Project. Lancet Glob. Health 2015, 3, e681–e691. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. LMS. Parameters for Girls: Infant Weight for Age. National Health and Nutrition Survey (NHANES), CDC/National Center for Health Statistics; LMS Parameters for Boys: Infant Weight for Age. National Health and Nutrition Survey (NHANES), CDC/National Center for Health Statistics. Available online: https://www.cdc.gov/growthcharts/percentile_data_files.htm (accessed on 30 December 2023).
  39. Fenton, T.R.; Chan, H.T.; Madhu, A.; Griffin, I.J.; Hoyos, A.; Ziegler, E.E.; Groh-Wargo, S.; Carlson, S.J.; Senterre, T.; Anderson, D.; et al. Preterm infant growth velocity calculations: A systematic review. Pediatrics 2017, 139, e20162045. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Griffiths, R.; Huntley, M. GMDS-R Griffiths Mental Development Scales- Revised 0–2 Years; Battaglia, F.M., Savoini, M., Eds.; Manuale. Giunti O.S: Firenze, Italy, 2007. [Google Scholar]
  41. Kumar, R.K.; Singhal, A.; Vaidya, U.; Banerjee, S.; Anwar, F.; Rao, S. Optimizing Nutrition in Preterm Low Birth Weight Infants—Consensus Summary. Front. Nutr. 2017, 4, 20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Zhou, Q.; Zhang, L.; Lee, S.K.; Chen, C.; Hu, X.J.; Liu, C.; Cao, Y. A Quality Improvement Initiative to Increase Mother’s Own Milk Use in a Chinese Neonatal Intensive Care Unit. Breastfeed Med. 2020, 15, 261–267. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Cerasani, J.; Ceroni, F.; De Cosmi, V.; Mazzocchi, A.; Morniroli, D.; Roggero, P.; Mosca, F.; Agostoni, C.; Giannì, M.L. Human Milk Feeding and Preterm Infants’ Growth and Body Composition: A Literature Review. Nutrients 2020, 12, 1155. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. ESPGHAN Committee on Nutrition; Aggett, P.J.; Agostoni, C.; Axelsson, I.; De Curtis, M.; Goulet, O.; Hernell, O.; Koletzko, B.; Lafeber, H.N.; Michaelsen, K.F.; et al. Feeding preterm infants after hospital discharge: A commentary by the ESPGHAN Committee on Nutrition. J. Pediatr. Gastroenterol. Nutr. 2006, 42, 596–603. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Lucas, A.; Morley, R.; Cole, T.J.; Lister, G.; Leeson-Payne, C. Breast milk and subsequent intelligence quotient in. Lancet 1992, 339, 261–264. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Vohr, B.R.; Poindexter, B.B.; Dusick, A.M.; McKinley, L.T.; Higgins, R.D.; Langer, J.C.; Poole, W.K. National Institute of Child Health and Human Development National Research Network. Persistent beneficial effects of breast milk ingested in the neonatal intensive care unit on outcomes of extremely low birth weight infants at 30 months of age. Pediatrics 2007, 120, e953–e959. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Young, L.; Embleton, N.D.; McCormick, F.M.; McGuire, W. Multinutrient fortification of human milk for preterm infants. Cochrane Database Syst. Rev. 2013, 2, CD004866. [Google Scholar]
  48. Young, L.; Embleton, N.D.; McGuire, W. Nutrient-enriched formula versus standard formula for preterm infants following hospital discharge. Cochrane Database Syst. Rev. 2016, 12, CD004696. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Vandenplas, Y.; Ksiażyk, J.; Luna, M.S.; Migacheva, N.; Picaud, J.C.; Ramenghi, L.A.; Singhal, A.; Wabitsch, M. Partial Hydrolyzed Protein as a Protein Source for Infant Feeding: Do or Don’t? Nutrients 2022, 14, 1720. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. World Health Organization. Complementary Feeding: Report of the Global Consultation, and Summary of Guiding Principles for Complementary Feeding of the Breastfed Child; World Health Organization: Geneva, Switzerland, 2003.
  51. EFSA Panel on Nutrition, Novel Foods and Food Allergens (NDA); Castenmiller, J.; de Henauw, S.; Hirsch-Ernst, K.I.; Kearney, J.; Knutsen, H.K.; Maciuk, A.; Mangelsdorf, I.; McArdle, H.J.; Naska, A.; et al. Appropriate age range for introduction of complementary feeding into an infant’s diet. EFSA J. 2019, 17, e05780. [Google Scholar]
  52. Baldassarre, M.E.; Di Mauro, A.; Pedico, A.; Rizzo, V.; Capozza, M.; Meneghin, F.; Lista, G.; Laforgia, N.; On behalf of Italian Society of Pediatrics (SIP), Italian Society of Neonatology (SIN), Italian Society of Pediatric Gastroenterology, Hepatology, and Nutrition (SIGENP) and Italian Federation of Paediatricians (FIMP). Weaning Time in Preterm Infants: An Audit of Italian Primary Care Paediatricians. Nutrients 2018, 10, 616. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Fewtrell, M.; Bronsky, J.; Campoy, C.; Domellöf, M.; Embleton, N.; Mis, N.F.; Hojsak, I.; Hulst, J.M.; Indrio, F.; Lapillonne, A.; et al. Complementary feeding: A position paper by the European Society for Paediatric Gastroenterology, hepatology, and nutrition (ESPGHAN) committee on nutrition. J. Pediatr. Gastroenterol. Nutr. 2017, 64, 119–132. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. DHSS (Department of Health and Social Security). Present day practice in infant feeding. Lancet 1988, 331, 975–976. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Department of Health. Weaning and the weaning diet. Rep. Health Soc. Subj. 1994, 45, 1–113. [Google Scholar]
  56. Palmer, D.J.; Makrides, M. Introducing solid foods to preterm infants in developed countries. Ann. Nutr. Metab. 2012, 60, 31–38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Gupta, S.; Agarwal, R.; Aggarwal, K.C.; Chellani, H.; Duggal, A.; Arya, S.; Bhatia, S.; Sankar, M.J.; Sreenivas, V.; Jain, V.; et al. Investigators of the CF trial. Complementary feeding at 4 versus 6 months of age for preterm infants born at less than 34 weeks of gestation: A randomised, open-label, multicentre trial. Lancet Glob. Health 2017, 5, e501–e511. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Marriott, L.D.; Foote, K.D.; Bishop, J.A.; Kimber, A.C.; Morgan, J.B. Weaning preterm infants: A randomised controlled trial. Arch. Dis. Child Fetal Neonatal Ed. 2003, 88, F302–F307. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Haiden, N.; Thanhaeuser, M.; Eibensteiner, F.; Huber-Dangl, M.; Gsoellpointner, M.; Ristl, R.; Kroyer, B.; Brandstetter, S.; Kornsteiner-Krenn, M.; Binder, C.; et al. Randomized Controlled Trial of Two Timepoints for Introduction of Standardized Complementary Food in Preterm Infants. Nutrients 2022, 14, 697. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Spiegler, J.; Eisemann, N.; Ehlers, S.; Orlikowsky, T.; Kannt, O.; Herting, E.; Göpel, W. Length and weight of very low birth weight infants in Germany at 2 years of age: Does it matter at what age they start complementary food? Eur. J. Clin. Nutr. 2015, 69, 662–667. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Morgan, J.B.; Lucas, A.; Fewtrell, M.S. Does weaning influence growth and health up to 18 months? Arch. Dis. Child 2004, 89, 728–733. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Sun, C.; Foskey, R.J.; Allen, K.J.; Dharmage, S.C.; Koplin, J.J.; Ponsonby, A.L.; Lowe, A.J.; Matheson, M.C.; Tang, M.L.; Gurrin, L.; et al. The impact of timing of introduction of solids on infant body mass index. J. Pediatr. 2016, 179, 104–110.e1. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Yrjänä, J.M.S.; Koski, T.; Törölä, H.; Valkama, M.; Kulmala, P. Very early introduction of semisolid foods in preterm infants does not increase food allergies or atopic dermatitis. Ann. Allergy Asthma Immunol. 2018, 121, 353–359. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Baldassarre, M.E.; Panza, R.; Cresi, F.; Salvatori, G.; Corvaglia, L.; Aceti, A.; Giannì, M.L.; Liotto, N.; Ilardi, L.; Laforgia, N.; et al. Mosca F and Italian Society of Paediatrics (SIP), Italian Society of Neonatology. Complementary feeding in preterm infants: A position paper by Italian neonatal, paediatric and paediatric gastroenterology joint societies. Ital. J. Pediatr. 2022, 48, 143. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Salvatori, G.; Martini, L.; On behalf of The Study Group On Neonatal Nutrition And Gastroenterology-Italian Society of Neonatology. Complementary Feeding in the Preterm Infants: Summary of Available Macronutrient Intakes and Requirements. Nutrients 2020, 12, 3696. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Ojha, S.; Elfzzani, Z.; Kwok, T.C.; Dorling, J. Education of family members to support weaning to solids and nutrition in later infancy in term-born infants. Cochrane Database Syst. Rev. 2020, 7, CD012241. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  67. Elfzzani, Z.; Kwok, T.C.; Ojha, S.; Dorling, J. Education of family members to support weaning to solids and nutrition in infants born preterm. Cochrane Database Syst. Rev. 2019, 2, CD012240. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  68. Duncan, A.F.; Matthews, M.A. Neurodevelopmental Outcomes in Early Childhood. Clin. Perinatol. 2018, 45, 377–392. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Fitzgerald, E.; Boardman, J.P.; Drake, A.J. Preterm Birth and the Risk of Neurodevelopmental Disorders—Is There a Role for Epigenetic Dysregulation? Curr. Genomics 2018, 19, 507–521. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Malova, M.; Parodi, A.; Severino, M.; Tortora, D.; Calevo, M.G.; Traggiai, C.; Massirio, P.; Minghetti, D.; Uccella, S.; Preiti, D.; et al. Neurodevelopmental Outcome at 3 Years of Age in Very Low Birth Weight Infants According to Brain Development and Lesions. Curr. Pediatr. Rev. 2024, 20, 94–105. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Table 1. Population details.
Table 1. Population details.
Whole Populationn = 288
Gestational age (weeks)28.9 ± 2.1
Birth weight (g)1097 ± 255 g (z-score −0.449 ± 1.09)
Small for gestational age (SGA)62 (21.5%)
Male sex139 (48.3%)
Cesarean delivery232 (80.6%)
Apgar at 5 min8 ± 1.2
Sepsis108 (37.5%)
Necrotizingenterocolitis (NEC)30 (10.4%)
Bronchodysplasia (BPD)68 (23.6%)
Major surgery36 (12.5%)
NEC surgery15 (5.2%)
Patent ductus arteriosus surgery17 (5.9%)
Exclusive mother milk feeding49 (17%)
Exclusive formula feeding118 (41%)
MRI low-grade lesions101 (35.1%)
Low-grade intraventricular hemorrhage (GMH-IVH)44 (15.3%)
Punctate white matter lesions (PWMLs)47 (16.3%)
Cerebellar micro-hemorrhage (micro-CBH)31 (10.8%)
Weight at term age TEA (g)2600 ± 598 (z-score −1.407 ± 1.415)
“Cross-sectional” EUGR at TEA144 (50%)
“Longitudinal” EUGR at TEA126 (43.8%)
Weight at 6 months (kg)6.81 ± 1.03 (z-score −1.240 ± 1.29)
“Cross-sectional” EUGR at 6 months133 (46.2%)
“Longitudinal” EUGR at 6 months46 (16.0%)
Weight at 12 months (kg)8.78 ± 1.16 (z-score −1.360 ± 1.25)
“Cross-sectional” EUGR at 12 months139 (48.3%)
Data are reported in mean value ± SDS for continuous variables, absolute number and percentage for categorical variables.
Table 2. Griffith Mental Development Scale II (GMDS) results at 2 and 3 years in the whole population for global and sub-scales development quotient (DQ).
Table 2. Griffith Mental Development Scale II (GMDS) results at 2 and 3 years in the whole population for global and sub-scales development quotient (DQ).
Developmental Quotient < 85 GMDS at 2 y (n = 288)
Global DQ56 (19.4%)
Locomotor (scale A)68 (23.6%)
Personal/social (scale B)67 (23.2%)
Language (scale C)127 (44.1%)
Hand–eye coordination (scale D)38 (13.2%)
Performance (scale E)70 (24.3%)
Developmental Quotient < 85 GMDS at 3 y (n = 262)
Global DQ100 (38.2%)
Locomotor (scale A)83 (31.7%)
Personal/social (scale B)87 (33.2%)
Language (scale C)139 (53.0%)
Hand–eye coordination (scale D)83 (31.6%)
Performance (scale E)126 (48.1%)
Practical reasoning (scale F)101 (38.5%)
Table 3. Univariate and multivariate analysis results for global development quotient at 2 years.
Table 3. Univariate and multivariate analysis results for global development quotient at 2 years.
2 y GMDS Global DQ<85≥85
n56232Total 288
z-score at 6 months−1.639 ± 1.582−1.140 ± 1.188p = 0.03
z-score at 12 months−1.735 ± 1.56−1.264 ± 1.155p = 0.03
Surgical NEC6 (10.7%)9 (3.9%)p = 0.08
“Cross-sectional” EUGR at 6 months33 (58.9%)101 (43.5%)p = 0.07
Multivariate analysis (corrected for GA):
z-score at 6 monthsOR 0.74 (CI 95% 0.59–0.93)p = 0.01
Univariate and multivariate analysis corrected for gestational age (GA); global development quotient (DQ) at 2 years Griffith Mental Development Scale. Data are reported in mean value ± SDS for continuous variables, absolute number and percentage for categorical variables. Odds ratios (OR) are calculated with a 95% confidence interval (CI). All p-values are based on two-tailed tests.
Table 4. Multivariate analysis for different Griffith Mental Development Subscales at 2 years.
Table 4. Multivariate analysis for different Griffith Mental Development Subscales at 2 years.
2 y GMDS Locomotor DQ
Major surgeryOR 3.79 (CI 95% 1.69–8.49)p = 0.001
“Cross-sectional” EUGR at 6 monthsOR 1.96 (CI 95% 1.10–3.47)p = 0.02
Punctate white matter lesions (PWMLs)OR 2.33 (CI 95% 1.15–4.71)p = 0.02
2 y GMDS Personal/social DQ
“Cross-sectional” EUGR at 6 monthsOR 1.94 (CI 95% 1.12–3.37)p = 0.02
NECOR 2.60 (CI 95% 1.14–5.92)p = 0.02
2 y GMDS Language DQ
NECOR 2.48 (CI 95% 1.07–5.71)p = 0.03
“Cross-sectional” EUGR at 6 monthsOR 1.87 (CI 95% 1.05–3.29)p = 0.02
Weight z-score at birthOR 0.31 (CI 95% 0.12–0.81)p = 0.02
2 y GMDS Hand–eye Coordination DQ
NECOR 3.98 (CI 95% 1.66–9.55)p = 0.002
2 y GMDS Performance DQ
Male sexOR 2.01 (CI 95% 1.13–3.57)p = 0.02
Punctate white matter lesions (PWMLs)OR 2.03 (CI 95% 1.00–4.14)p = 0.05
Major surgeryOR 4.07 (CI 95% 1.78–9.33)p = 0.001
“Longitudinal” EUGR at 6 monthsOR 2.10 (CI 95% 1.03–4.30)p = 0.04
Multivariate analysis corrected for gestational age (GA) for different Griffith Mental Development Subscales at 2 years. Odds ratios (OR) are calculated with a 95% confidence interval (CI). All p-values are based on two-tailed tests.
Table 5. Univariate and multivariate analysis results for global development quotient at 3 years.
Table 5. Univariate and multivariate analysis results for global development quotient at 3 years.
3 y GMDS Global DQ<85≥85
n100162Total 262
Male sex60 (60%)70 (43.2%)p = 0.01
Caesarean delivery76 (76%)138 (85.2%)p = 0.05
NEC17 (17%)12 (7.4%)p = 0.02
Multivariate analysis (corrected for GA):
Male sexOR 1.94 (CI 95% 1.16–3.24)p = 0.01
NECOR 2.55 (CI 95% 1.11–5.86)p = 0.03
Univariate and multivariate analysis corrected for gestational age (GA); global development quotient (DQ) at 3 years Griffith Mental Development Scale. Data are reported in mean value ± SDS for continuous variables, absolute number and percentage for categorical variables. Odds ratios (OR) are calculated with a 95% confidence interval (CI). All p-values are based on two-tailed tests.
Table 6. Multivariate analysis for different Griffith Mental Development Subscales at 3 years.
Table 6. Multivariate analysis for different Griffith Mental Development Subscales at 3 years.
3 y GMDS Locomotor DQ
Male sexOR 1.82 (CI 95% 1.07–3.10)p = 0.03
3 y GMDS Personal/social DQ
Male sexOR 2.18 (CI 95% 1.28–3.72)p = 0.004
Caesarean deliveryOR 0.47 (CI 95% 0.25–0.91)p = 0.02
3 y GMDS Language DQ
“Cross-sectional” EUGR at 6 monthsOR 1.63 (CI 95% 0.99–2.68)p = 0.05
Male sexOR 1.88 (CI 95% 1.14–3.10)p = 0.01
3 y GMDS Hand–eye Coordination DQ
NECOR 4.17 (CI 95% 1.78–9.76)p = 0.001
Male sexOR 1.80 (CI 95% 1.04–3.10)p = 0.03
3 y GMDS Performance DQ
NECOR 4.31 (CI 95% 1.63–11.35)p = 0.003
Male sexOR 2.39 (CI 95% 1.44–3.97)p = 0.001
3 y GMDS Practical Reasoning DQ
NECOR 4.47 (CI 95% 1.84–10.85)p = 0.001
“Longitudinal” EUGR at 6 monthsOR 2.07 (CI 95% 1.02–4.17)p = 0.04
Multivariate analysis corrected for gestational age (GA) for different Griffith Mental Development Subscales at 3 years. Odds ratios (OR) are calculated with a 95% confidence interval (CI). All p-values are based on two-tailed tests.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Massirio, P.; Battaglini, M.; Bonato, I.; De Crescenzo, S.; Calevo, M.G.; Malova, M.; Caruggi, S.; Parodi, A.; Preiti, D.; Zoia, A.; et al. Early Extra-Uterine Growth Restriction in Very-Low-Birth-Weight Neonates with Normal or Mildly Abnormal Brain MRI: Effects on a 2–3-Year Neurodevelopmental Outcome. Nutrients 2024, 16, 449. https://doi.org/10.3390/nu16030449

AMA Style

Massirio P, Battaglini M, Bonato I, De Crescenzo S, Calevo MG, Malova M, Caruggi S, Parodi A, Preiti D, Zoia A, et al. Early Extra-Uterine Growth Restriction in Very-Low-Birth-Weight Neonates with Normal or Mildly Abnormal Brain MRI: Effects on a 2–3-Year Neurodevelopmental Outcome. Nutrients. 2024; 16(3):449. https://doi.org/10.3390/nu16030449

Chicago/Turabian Style

Massirio, Paolo, Marcella Battaglini, Irene Bonato, Sara De Crescenzo, Maria Grazia Calevo, Mariya Malova, Samuele Caruggi, Alessandro Parodi, Deborah Preiti, Agata Zoia, and et al. 2024. "Early Extra-Uterine Growth Restriction in Very-Low-Birth-Weight Neonates with Normal or Mildly Abnormal Brain MRI: Effects on a 2–3-Year Neurodevelopmental Outcome" Nutrients 16, no. 3: 449. https://doi.org/10.3390/nu16030449

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop