Skip to main content
PLOS One logoLink to PLOS One
. 2025 Nov 20;20(11):e0337083. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0337083

Outcome of infants with bronchopulmonary dysplasia

Dwi Kisworo Setyowireni 1,*, Roni Naning 1, Rina Triasih 1, Indah Kartika Murni 1,2,*, Madarina Julia 1, Ekawaty Luthfia Haksari 1
Editor: Stefan Grosek3
PMCID: PMC12633949  PMID: 41264604

Abstract

Background

Bronchopulmonary dysplasia (BDP) is the most common chronic lung disease in infants. The study aimed to evaluate the outcome of infants diagnosed with BPD in Yogyakarta, Indonesia.

Material and methods

A retrospective cohort study was conducted by reviewing the medical records of infants with BPD born between January 2015 and December 2020 at Dr. Sardjito General Hospital in Yogyakarta, Indonesia. Surviving children were invited for clinical assessment and echocardiogram. A multivariate logistic regression analysis was used to identify predictors of mortality.

Results

Among 8,490 newborns hospitalized in the Perinatal ward, 100 (1.2%) developed BPD, with neonatal sepsis and congenital heart disease as the most prevalent comorbidities. Of the 85 infants with complete data, 41 (48.2%) died within 7 months. Multivariate analysis revealed that post-menstrual age (PMA) < 28 weeks and mechanical ventilation as independent predictors of mortality, with adjusted odds ratios (ORs) (95% CI) of 5.27 (1.36-20.43) and 0.26 (0.09-0.75), respectively.

Conclusions

Nearly half of the infants diagnosed with BPD died within the first seven months of life. PMA < 28 weeks was associated with increased mortality risk, while mechanical ventilation showed a protective effect against mortality in infants with BPD.

Introduction

Bronchopulmonary dysplasia (BPD) is a chronic lung disease predominantly affecting premature infants who require mechanical ventilation and oxygen therapy. However, it can also occur in term infants with severe or milder respiratory conditions. Despite improvement in perinatal care, BPD remains a significant challenge, representing the leading cause of late respiratory morbidity in preterm infants [1,2]. The long-term impact of BPD includes persistent respiratory symptoms and airflow obstruction, potentially affecting lung function into adulthood [2,3].

The incidence of BPD varies widely across institutions, reflecting differences in neonatal risk factors, care practices (such as the use of noninvasive ventilation and target oxygen saturation levels), and clinical definitions of BPD. Studies have reported BPD approximately 40% in infants born at ≤ 28 weeks gestational age [4] and up to 77% in those born at <32 weeks’ gestational age and weighing <1,000 g [1]. Infants with a birth weight <1,250 g account for 97% of BPD cases [5].

Infants with BPD face considerable morbidity and mortality, with approximately 40% of those died. Survivors are at high risk for long-term complications, including airway functional impairment as exhibited by abnormal forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1), vital capacity (VC), and functional residual capacity (FRC) within the first five years [6]. Infants with moderate to severe BPD had lower FEV1 and forced expiratory flow (FEF25–75) than those with mild BPD, along with greater developmental delays [7], increased hospital readmission due to lower respiratory infection especially caused by respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) infections [8,9], reactive pulmonary disease, persistent airway obstruction [10], and pulmonary hypertension [11].

Despite the global burden of BPD, data on the incidence and outcomes in Indonesia are limited. Therefore, this study aimed to evaluate the outcome and predictors of mortality in children with BPD in Yogyakarta, providing valuable insights into the management and prognosis of BPD in resourse-limited settings.

Materials and methods

Participants

A retrospective cohort study was conducted at Dr. Sardjito General Hospital in Yogyakarta, Indonesia, from January 2015 to December 2020, involving all infants with BPD hospitalized in the neonatology ward and NICU.

Data collection

Demographic and clinical data were collected from medical records, including date of birth, sex, gestational age, birth weight, weight-for-gestational age (Lubchenco), and pre-natal infection status. Neonatal morbidity and any re-admissions (such as neonatal sepsis, pulmonary hypertension, other pulmonary problems, congenital heart disease, and other congenital anomalies), as well as treatment and interventions (such as surfactant therapy, oxygen supplementation, and mechanical ventilation), were recorded. Mortality data, both in-hospital and post-discharge, were documented. Surviving children were invited for clinical assessment and echocardiography between March and September 2021, with written informed consent obtained from their parents.

Broncopulmonary dysplasia

Infants were diagnosed with BPD if they met one or more of the following criteria: (1) need for supplemental oxygen at a post-menstrual age [PMA] of 36 weeks or more [12]; (2) meeting the severity-based diagnostic criteria established by the National Institutes of Health Workshop [13], or (3) oxygen saturation below 88% within 60 minutes during a “room air challenge test” [5].

The severity of BPD was categorized based on the requirement of oxygen support, fraction of inspired oxygen (FiO2), or positive pressure ventilation (PPV) at 36 weeks’ gestational age, at discharge, or at 56 days old. BPD was classified as mild if infants required room air, moderate if oxygen supplementation (FiO2) was < 30%, and severe if FiO2 ≥ 30% or PPV was required [13].

Pulmonary hypertension

As echo-cardiography was not routinely performed in neonates with BPD during NICU hospitalization or later follow-up. Subsequent echocardiograms were conducted for surviving infants without initial pulmonary hypertension and for those who had not previously undergone echo-cardiography.

All echo-cardiograms were performed by skilled pediatric cardiologists, with pulmonary hypertension diagnosed based on elevated pulmonary artery pressure, indicated by tricuspid valve regurgitation velocity > 3 m/s in the absence of pulmonary stenosis, or evidence of right ventricular hypertrophy with chamber dilation and a flat or leftward-deviated interventricular septum [11].

Statistical analysis

Data were presented as mean and standard deviation (SD) for normally distributed data, median and range for non-normally distributed data, or proportions as appropriate. Survival analyses estimated median survival times, stratified by the severity of BPD. A multivariate logistic regression model identified independent predictor of mortality in infants with BPD. For this analysis, all potential predictors with p value < 0.25 in univariate analysis, were included in the multivariate model. Results were reported as odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs), with p < 0.05 indicating statistical significance. Statistical analyses were conducted using SPSS for Mac, version 12.

Ethical consideration

We obtained ethical approval from the Medical and Health Research Ethics Committee at the Faculty of Medicine, Public Health and Nursing of Universitas Gadjah Mada, Indonesia (KE/FK/0171/EC/2021). The study was conducted in accordance with relevant guidelines. As a retrospective study, individual patient consent was not required by the ethics committees. However, written informed consent was obtained from the parents for surviving children invited for clinical assessment and echocardiogram between March and September 2022.

Results

During the study period, among 8,490 newborns hospitalized in the neonatology ward and NICU, only 100 infants (1.2%) were diagnosed with BPD, with complete data available for 85 of these infants. The majority of the infants were born at < 32 weeks of gestational age and had a birth weight of less than 1,500 g (Table 1). The median gestational age was 30 weeks (range: 25−42 weeks), and the median birth weight was 1,190 gram (range: 600−3,684 gram).

Table 1. Characteristics of BPD patients.

All

n = 85
Mild BPD

n = 32
Moderate BPD

n = 27
Severe BPD

n = 26
Gender, male (%) 45 (52.9) 18 (56.2) 12 (44.4) 15 (57.7)
Duration of follow up (year), median (range) 3.67 (0.75-7.5) 3.63 (1.08-7.5) 4.17 (0.75-7.5) 3.17 (1.08-7.4)
Gestational age (weeks), median (range)* 30 (25-42) 30 (25–39) 29 (25-42) 29.5 (26–41)
  < 32 weeks 53 (62.3) 20 (62.5) 16 (593) 17 (65.4)
 32–37 weeks 23 (27.1) 9 (28.1) 8 (29.6) 6 (23.1)
  > 37 weeks 9 (10.6) 3 (9.4) 3 (11.1) 3 (11.5)
Birth weight (g), median (range)* 1,190 (600−3,684) 1,300 (764−3,684) 1,160 (600−2,597) 1,100 (800−3,550)
  < 1000 g (%) 20 (23.5) 7 (21.9) 6 (22.2) 7 (26.9)
 1000 – < 1500 g (%) 43 (50.6) 16 (50) 14 (51.8) 13 (50)
 1500 – < 2500 g (%) 16 (18.8) 6 (18.7) 6 (22.2) 4 (15.4)
  ≥ 2500 g (%) 6 (7.1) 3 (9.4) 1 (3.7) 2 (7.7)
Birth weight/gestational age**
 SGA (%) 21 (24.7) 7 (21.9) 8 (29.6) 6 (23.1)
 AGA (%) 60 (70.6) 22 (68.7) 19 (70.4) 19 (73.1)
 LGA (%) 4 (4.7) 3 (9.4) 0 1 (3.8)
 Surfactant therapy 16 (18.8) 5 (15.6) 6 (22.2) 5 (19.2)
Morbidity
 Congenital anomaly (%) 7 (8.2) 2 (6.2) 4 (14.8) 1 (3.8)
 Prenatal infection (%) 1 (1.2) 1 (3.1) 0 0
 Neonatal sepsis 55 (64.7) 22 (68.7) 12 (44.4) 21 (80.8)
 Readmission (times), median (range) 1 (1–3) 1 (1–2) 1 (1–2) 1 (1–3)
 Oxygen supplementation (%) 65 (76.5) 25 (78.1) 20 (74.1) 21 (80.8)
   ≥ 10 days 52 (61.2) 20 (62.5) 15 (55.6) 16 (61.5)
   < 10 days 13 (15.3) 5 (15.6) 5 (18.5) 5 (19.2)
 Mechanical ventilation (%) 51 (60) 23 (71.9) 13 (48.1) 16 (61.5)
   ≥ 10 days 38 (44.7) 16 (50) 8 (29.6) 14 (53.8)
   < 10 days 13 (15.3) 7 (21.9) 5 (18.5) 2 (7.7)
 Respiratory problems (cough, dyspnea, wheeze) 7 (8.2) 2 (6.2) 3 (11.1) 2 (7.7)
Mortality (all, n = 85) 41 (48.2) 15 (46.88) 11 (40.74) 15 (57.69)
 Age (months), median (range) 2 (1–7) 2 (1–7) 1 (1–6) 2 (1–4)
Mortality during neonatal period (n = 41) 19 (46.3) 7 (46.7) 6 (54.5) 6 (40)
 1 week 10 (52.6) 3 (42.9) 4 (66.7) 3 (50)
 2 weeks 5 (26.3) 1 (14.3) 1 (16.7) 3 (50)
 3 weeks 2 (10.5) 2 (28.6) 0 0
 4 weeks 2 (10.5) 1 (14.3) 1 (16.7) 0

SGA-small for gestational age; AGA-appropriate for gestational age; LGA-large for gestational age; *Each sub class is compared to other sub classes; **Lubchenco.

The incidence of respiratory problems such as cough, wheeze and dyspnea was only 8.2% among infants with BPD. On the other hand, neonatal sepsis was the most common comorbidity, especially among those with severe BPD. Infants with mild and severe BPD who received oxygen supplementation for more than 10 days were more prevalent compared to those with moderate group.

Echocardiography performed before 7 months of age was conducted in 28 infants, with 9 (32%) diagnosed with pulmonary hypertension (PH). Among those with PH, two (22%) died before reaching 7 months, compared to 7 out of 19 (37%) infants without PH (Fig 1). Congenital heart disease was detected in 35 infants (83.3%), with 74.2% diagnosed before 7 months old (26/35) (Fig 1). The incidence of PH and congenital heart disease was similar across the three BPD severity groups (Table 1). Among the 14 surviving children, four (29%) were diagnosed with PH at the last follow-up (Fig 1).

Fig 1. Patient selection algorithm.

Fig 1

Almost half (48.2%) of the infants died before the age of 7 months (Fig 2).

Fig 2. Kaplan-Meier curves showing survival rate by severity of BPD infant.

Fig 2

Table 2 shows predictors of mortality before the age of 7 months.

Table 2. Results of echocardiography in patients with BPD.

Echocardiography (n) All

42
Mild

16
Moderate

14
Severe

12
Pulmonary hypertension (%) 13 (30.9) 6 (37.5) 3 (21.4) 4 (33.3)
 Died 2 (15.4) 1 (16.7) 0 1 (25)
Congenital heart disease % 35 (83.3) 12 (75) 12 (85.7) 11 (91.7)
 Died 9 (25.7) 3 (25) 2 (16.7) 4 (36.4)
 ASD (%) 13 (37.1) 4 (33.3) 4 (33.3) 5 (19.2)
 VSD (%) 5 (14.3) 3 (25) 1 (8.3) 1 (3.8)
 PDA (%) 15 (42.9) 4 (33.3) 6 (50) 5 (19.2)
 PFO (%) 2 (5.7) 1 (8.3) 1 (8.3) 0
At birth – 7 months 28 7 11 10
Pulmonary hypertension (%) 9 (32.1) 3 (42.9) 3 (27.3) 10
 Died 2 (22.2) 1 (33.3) 0 1 (33.3)
Congenital heart disease % 26 (92.9) 7 (100) 10 (90.9) 9 (90)
 ASD (%) 10 (38.4) 4 (57.1) 3 (30) 3 (33.3)
 VSD (%) 3 (11.5) 1 (1.4) 1 (10) 1 (11.1)
 PDA (%) 12 (46.2) 2 (2.9) 5 (50) 5 (55.6)
 PFO (%) 1 (3.8) 0 1 (10) 0
After 7 months 14 9 3 2
Pulmonary hypertension (%) 4 (28.6) 2 (22.2) 2 (66.7) 0
 Died 0 0 0 0
Congenital heart disease % 9 (64.3) 5 (55.6) 2 (66.7) 2 (100)
 ASD (%) 3 (33.3) 0 1 (50) 2 (100)
 VSD (%) 2 (22.2) 2 (40) 0 0
 PDA (%) 3 (33.3) 2 (40) 1 (50) 0
 PFO (%) 1 (11.1) 1 (20) 0 0

ASD-atrial septal defect; VSD-ventricle septal defect; PDA-patent ductus arteriosus; PFO-persistent foramen ovale.

Univariate logistic regression revealed that PMA of < 28 weeks significantly increased the risk of mortality (OR 3.67; 95% CI 1.06–12.6; p = 0.04), while mechanical ventilation was associated with a decreased risk of mortality (OR 0.37; CI95% 0.15–0.91; p = 0.03). In multivariate analysis, PMA < 28 weeks remained independently associated with increased risk of mortality (OR 5.27; CI95% 1.36–20.43; p = 0.16), and mechanical ventilation remained associated with a decreased risk of mortality (OR 0.26; CI95% 0.09–0.75; p = 0.013). However, the variable of appropriate gestational age (AGA) and congenital heart disease did not demonstrate significant associations with mortality in infants with BPD (Table 3).

Table 3. Multivariate analysis of the predictors of mortality in BPD infants before 7 months old.

Characteristic Died

n = 41 (%)
Survived

N = 44 (%)
OR (CI 95%) p Adjusted OR (CI 95%) P
Gender, male 21 (51.2) 24 (54.5) 0.875 (0.373 −2.053) 0.759
Birth weight*
  < 1000 g 11 (26.8) 9 (20.5) 1.426 (0.521-3.903) 0.490
 1000 – < 1500 g 18 (43.9) 24 (54.4) 0.652 (0.277-1.535) 0.328
 1500 – < 2500 g 9 (22) 7 (15.9) 1.487 (0.497-4.445) 0.478
  ≥ 2500 g 3 (7.3) 3 (6.8) 1.079 (0.205-5.675) 0.929
Birth weight/ gestational age*
 SGA 12 (29.3) 9 (20.5) 1.609 (0.595-4.351) 0.348
 AGA 26 (63.4) 34 (77.3) 0.510 (0.197-1.317) 0.164 0.360 (0.120-1.078) 0.068
 LGA 3 (7.3) 1 (2.3) 3.395 (0.339-34.025) 0.299
Surfactant therapy 9 (22.0) 7 (15.9) 1.487(0.497-4.445) 0.478
Congenital anomaly 3 (7.3) 4 (9.1) 1.267 (0.266-6.036) 0.767
Neonatal sepsis 29 (70.7) 26 (59.1) 0.598 (0.243-1.473) 0.263
Oxygen supplementation 34 (82.9) 32 (72.7) 0.549 (0.192-1.568) 0.263
Mechanical ventilation 30 (73.2) 22 (50) 0.367 (0.148-0.910) 0.031
Respiratory problems (cough, dyspnea, wheezing) 5 (12.2) 2 (4.5) 0.343 (0.063-1.875) 0.217
PMA < 28 week 11 (26.8) 4 (9.1) 3.667 (1.063-12.651) 0.040 0.253 (1.359–20.431) 0.016
Echocardiography (< 7 month) n = 28 N = 8 (%) N = 20 (%)
 Pulmonary hypertension 2 (25) 7 (35) 0.619 (0.098-3.919) 0.610
 Congenital heart disease 6 (75) 20 (100) 0.222 (0.036-1.390) 0.108 0.44 (0.132-1.488) 0.020

SGA-small for gestational age; AGA-appropriate for gestational age; LGA-large for gestational age; PMA-post-menstrual age; *each sub-class was compared to others sub-class to have 2x2 table.

Discussion

This study evaluated outcomes and explored predictors of mortality among infants with BPD in Yogyakarta, Indonesia. The results indicated significant mortality, with independent predictors of mortality being a post-menstrual age of <28 weeks and the use of mechanical ventilation.

The incidence of BPD varies globally, with our study revealing a relatively low incidence of 1.2% among all infants and 4.8% among those born at < 32 weeks gestation. Nearly half of the infants diagnosed with BPD in our cohort died, while 32% developed pulmonary hypertension later in life. In contrast, some studies reported much higher proportion of BPD, with 49% among infants < 32 weeks’ gestation in Korea [14], and 34% among < 28 weeks’ gestation in USA [15]. A study involving premature infants (< 37 weeks gestation) in Quebec found a BPD incidence of 36.1% [16], with 20.5% [17] classified as moderate to severe BPD. Another study among extremely low birth weight infant (≤ 1,000 g) in Birmingham documented the proportion of moderate-severe BPD was 37.2%, and in Cincinnati was 29.4% [18]. The different findings among studies may be due to the variations in diagnostic criteria and clinical practices across different settings and time periods.

Historically, defining BPD has been a challenge, with criteria evolving over time. Early definitions primarily relied on the need for supplemental oxygen as a marker of pulmonary damage [19,20], while newer criteria incorporate clinical and radiographic changes alongside continued oxygen dependency during the first 28 days [19]. Understanding the concepts of old and new BPD may provide insights for refining diagnostic approaches and optimizing care strategies for neonates in our hospital.

The lung damage in these infants was primarily attributed to aggressive mechanical ventilation and high inspired oxygen concentrations. Infants with severe respiratory symptoms and characteristic radiographic changes presented little diagnostic difficulty. However, with the widespread use of antenatal corticosteroids, postnatal surfactant therapy, and less aggressive mechanical ventilation, this classic presentation of BPD has become relatively uncommon. At the same time, there has been a striking increase in survival rates among extremely premature infants, for whom underlying lung immaturity plays a predominant role in the pathogenesis and clinical presentation of BPD. This new presentation has created confusions regarding the definitions and diagnostic criteria of BPD. Diagnostic challenges arise particularly with milder forms of BPD, where infants may have only mild initial respiratory failure and require shorter durations of respiratory support. In these cases, the radiographic findings can differ significantly from the classic pattern described by Northway and colleagues [10]. These various clinical and radiographic manifestations reflect the different pathogenic processes that underlines the new presentation of BPD.

Classic BPD was characterized by severe morphologic changes, including emphysema, atelectasis fibrosis, squamous metaplasia, and smooth muscle hypertrophy in the airways and pulmonary vasculature. These changes were associated with severe respiratory failure, airway obstruction, pulmonary hypertension, and cor pulmonale. In contrast, the milder forms of BPD that are more frequently observed today are mainly characterized by increased fluid, a diffuse inflammatory response, and significant decrease in alveolar septation and impaired vascular development [21–25]. These changes are more compatible with an arrest in lung development rather than mechanical injury. It remains unclear to what extent this developmental arrest is a result of premature lung exposure to gas breathing versus the effects of volutrauma and oxygen toxicity. Additional factors including incomplete development, inflammatory processes due to ante- or postnatal infections [26–30], and exposure of the immature pulmonary vasculature to increased flow through a persistent ductus arteriosus [31,32] are also implicated in the pathogenesis of BPD.

Limited data availability in our medical records constraints our assessment of long-term morbidity. However, neonatal sepsis (64.7%) and congenital heart disease (83.3%) emerged as prevalent comorbidities among infants with BPD, which atrial septal defect (ASD) and patent ductus arteriosus (PDA) being the most common congenital heart diseases. A retrospective study comparing BPD and respiratory distress syndrome (RDS) revealed a higher prevalence of PDA in BPD cases (64.5% vs 15.2%, p < 0.0001) [16], especially among severe BPD cases (95% vs 59%) [14]. Pulmonary hypertension is considered as a cardiovascular complication associated with BPD, although the mechanism responsible for elevated pulmonary vascular resistance and altered reactivity remains incompletely understood. Our study suggested a lower risk of PH in mild BPD cases compared to severe ones, although this association was not statistically significant (RR 0.72; CI95% 0.29–1.76).

The proportion of PH did not significantly differ among infants with mild, moderate and severe BPD. This finding was similar to previous study reported a PH prevalence as high as 25%, with a higher proportion in severe BPD (58%) than in moderate and mild cases [11]. Another study involving 42 preterm infants with BPD complicated by PH (gestational age < 32 weeks) reported that 43% had severe PH, with a mortality rate of 38% [33]. However, due to limitation in data availability, we could not calculate the rate of PH among preterm infants < 32 weeks of gestation with BPD in our study. Our findings revealed an overall mortality rate of 48.2% among infants with BPD, occuring within the first 7 month of age. Among BPD infants with PH, the mortality rate was 15.4%, with detection typically occuring between 2–4 months old. Otherwise, all BPD infants with PH detected before 2 months old survived, raising questions about whether early detection contributed to improved outcomes.

The lack of statistical significance in the incidence of pulmonary hypertension (PH) among patients with BPD may be attributed to incomplete ascertainment, as echo-cardiograms were not universally performed on all newborns with these comorbidities. McKinney et al. implemented a comprehensive screening protocol for PH and structural anomalies using echo-cardiography at 36 weeks PMA, with follow-up echo-cardiograms conducted before discharge or in response to significant clinical deterioration [34]. This systematic screening approach may have contributed to more complete detection of PH. Studies have shown that PH in BPD patients correlates with significantly lower cognitive, language, and motor scores on the Bayley III assessment at 18–24 months of age compared to non-PH infants, as well as lower z-scores for weight and head circumference [17]. These findings underscore the importance of close developmental monitoring and routine screening for cardiac issues in infants with BPD after discharge.

We observed a median length of stay of 57 days, with a trend toward longer hospitalizations associated with increasing severity of BPD. Interestingly, while mechanical ventilation was utilized more frequently in mild BPD cases (71.9%) compared to moderate (48.1%) and severe (61.5%), oxygen supplementation varied among the severity groups. Prolonged hospital stays may be attributed to the complexities of the clinical course, including factors such as sepsis and congenital heart disease, which often require extended stays in the neonatal intensive care unit (NICU). Further analysis is warranted to explore these associations. Identifying factors contributing to prolonged mechanical ventilation dependency may involve various modalities.for instance, bronchoscopy, a proven safe procedure in infants, allows dynamic assessment of airway issues [35], while chest computed tomography (CT) scans offer valuable insights into BPD severity and structural abnormalities detection [36].

The role of mechanical ventilation in bronchopulmonary dysplasia (BPD) is complex, balancing potential harm and necessary support. Initially, aggressive mechanical ventilation was linked to lung injury and severe respiratory symptoms in BPD due to volutrauma and barotrauma, which exacerbate inflammation and hinder lung development. However, our study found that mechanical ventilation was associated with a decreased risk of mortality among BPD infants under 7 months, suggesting its critical role in managing acute respiratory failure. This indicates that while mechanical ventilation can contribute to lung damage, it remains an essential intervention when used appropriately, particularly in severe cases of BPD. Therefore, a nuanced understanding of mechanical ventilation is necessary to optimize care strategies, maximizing its benefits while minimizing risks. Further research is needed to identify the best practices for ventilation that protect lung health in these vulnerable infants.

The higher use of mechanical ventilation in mild BPD patients compared to moderate or severe cases may stem from several factors. Mild BPD often presents with transient respiratory distress, prompting initial ventilation for stabilization. Hospital protocols might advocate for aggressive management of any respiratory issues, and variability in symptom presentation could lead to more cautious approaches. Additionally, surfactant therapy may influence the decision to initiate ventilation. Early intervention strategies and prolonged hospital stays for monitoring could also contribute to the increased use of mechanical ventilation in these infants. Overall, these factors reflect clinical practices aimed at preventing worsening respiratory conditions.

The mortality rate of BPD observed in our study was alarmingly high at 48.2%, with similar proportions observed across mild, moderate, and severe cases. This high mortality is not only attributable to the severity of BPD, but also to perinatal comorbidities such as neonatal sepsis and congenital heart disease. The majority of affected infants were premature (82.9%), with 66% born at less than 32 weeks’ gestation and 92.7% with low birth weight, including 70.7% weighing less than 1500 g. Mortality predominantly occurred within the first 7 months after birth. Risk factors for mortality included a post-menstrual age of less than 28 weeks, while being appropriate for gestational age and the use of mechanical ventilation were identified as protective factors. A study in Korea reported improved survival rates among infants born at 23–26 weeks’ gestation during 2006–2010 (80.3%) compared 2000–2006 (70.0%), especially in infants at 23–24 weeks’ gestation (73.9% vs 47.4%, respectively). Improved survival was significantly associated with larger birth weight, higher Apgar score at 5 minutes, and maternal use of antenatal steroids before delivery [37]. The association between lower gestational age (GA) at delivery and mortality from BPD remains controversial. A gestational age of ≤ 28 weeks results in extreme structural and biochemical lung immaturity, which is the most powerful risk factor for the development of BPD. The increased survival of extremely premature infants might increase the actual number of premature infants at risk for BPD. However, Kim et al., found that increased survival of extremely preterm infants at 23–24 weeks gestation was associated with a reduced incidence of BPD in infants born at 25–26 weeks. Conversely, Botet at al., reported no increase in the survival among extremely low birth weight infants; although survival rate of infants without BPD improved from 58.5% (1997–2000) to 75% (2006–2009) [38]. Ambalavanan et al., employed statistical methods (Classification and Regression Tree/CART) to identify risk factors for death and BPD, finding that increased severity of respiratory failure, lower birth weight, male gender and out-born status were major factors [39]. Intubation and ventilation may induce volutrauma and barotrauma, while less invasive methods such as continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) could allow continuous alveolar growth and reduce lung damage [40]. Notably, our study found mechanical ventilation to be a protective factor against mortality in infants with BPD, although the specific type of mechanical ventilation used were not detailed in our data. Further exploration and classification of ventilation modalities are necessary to elucidate their impact on patient outcomes.

The study adds to current knowledge by highlighting high mortality rates in infants with BPD in Yogyakarta, Indonesia, underscoring the critical role of low post-menstrual age (<28 weeks) as an independent predictor of mortality. Interestingly, mechanical ventilation was associated with lower mortality, contrasting with earlier findings where it was linked to lung damage in BPD. This suggests that careful, possibly less aggressive, ventilation strategies may improve survival. These results reinforce the importance of early, targeted interventions for high-risk infants in similar healthcare settings.

Our study has several limitations. Firstly, its retrospective nature relied on the accuracy of medical records, which may have led to incomplete data capture. Additionally, the study was conducted at a single hospital with a relatively small sample size, and approximately 15% of medical records were inactive, potentially introducing selection bias. Secondly, varying criteria for defining BPD over time highlight the need for standardized diagnostic criteria to ensure uniformity in diagnosis and data interpretation. Longitudinal studies involving multicenter and employing prospective cohort designs are warranted to provide a more comprehensive understanding of the long-term impact of BPD and chronic lung disease.

Conclusion

In conclusion, our study a 1.2% incidence of BPD among hospitalized newborns, with a mortality rate affecting nearly half. Key predictors included neonatal sepsis, congenital heart disease, and a post-menstrual age of < 28 weeks, while mechanical ventilation appeared to reduce mortality. These findings underscore the importance of early identification and targeted management strategies to mitigate risks and improve outcomes for infants with BPD.

Supporting information

S1 File. Dataset BPD.

(PDF)

pone.0337083.s001.pdf (203.6KB, pdf)

Acknowledgments

We gratefully acknowledge Melita Permata Sari, MD and Mohammad Buston, MD for providing the data collection and statistical support. We also thank to Nadya Arafuri, MD and Hendra Purnasida Bagaswoto, MD for helping data collection.

Data Availability

All relevant data are within the paper and its Supporting information files.

Funding Statement

The author(s) received no specific funding for this work.

References

  • 1.Stoll BJ, Hansen NI, Bell EF, Shankaran S, Laptook AR, Walsh MC, et al. Neonatal outcomes of extremely preterm infants from the NICHD Neonatal Research Network. Pediatrics. 2010;126(3):443–56. doi: 10.1542/peds.2009-2959 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Tracy MK, Berkelhamer SK. Bronchopulmonary dysplasia and pulmonary outcomes of prematurity. Pediatr Ann. 2019;48(4):e148-53. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Collaco JM, McGrath-Morrow SA. Bronchopulmonary dysplasia as a determinant of respiratory outcomes in adult life. Pediatr Pulmonol. 2021;56(11):3464–71. doi: 10.1002/ppul.25301 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Stoll BJ, Hansen NI, Bell EF, Walsh MC, Carlo WA, Shankaran S, et al. Trends in Care Practices, Morbidity, and Mortality of Extremely Preterm Neonates, 1993-2012. JAMA. 2015;314(10):1039–51. doi: 10.1001/jama.2015.10244 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Walsh MC, Wilson-Costello D, Zadell A, Newman N, Fanaroff A. Safety, reliability, and validity of a physiologic definition of bronchopulmonary dysplasia. J Perinatol. 2003;23(6):451–6. doi: 10.1038/sj.jp.7210963 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Islam JY, Keller RL, Aschner JL, Hartert TV, Moore PE. Understanding the Short- and Long-Term Respiratory Outcomes of Prematurity and Bronchopulmonary Dysplasia. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2015;192(2):134–56. doi: 10.1164/rccm.201412-2142PP [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Landry JS, Chan T, Lands L, Menzies D. Long-term impact of bronchopulmonary dysplasia on pulmonary function. Can Respir J. 2011;18(5):265–70. doi: 10.1155/2011/547948 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Eber E, Zach MS. Long term sequelae of bronchopulmonary dysplasia (chronic lung disease of infancy). Thorax. 2001;56(4):317–23. doi: 10.1136/thorax.56.4.317 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Greenough A. Long-term respiratory consequences of premature birth at less than 32 weeks of gestation. Early Hum Dev. 2013;89 Suppl 2:S25–7. doi: 10.1016/j.earlhumdev.2013.07.004 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Northway WH Jr, Moss RB, Carlisle KB, Parker BR, Popp RL, Pitlick PT, et al. Late pulmonary sequelae of bronchopulmonary dysplasia. N Engl J Med. 1990;323(26):1793–9. doi: 10.1056/NEJM199012273232603 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.An HS, Bae EJ, Kim GB, Kwon BS, Beak JS, Kim EK, et al. Pulmonary hypertension in preterm infants with bronchopulmonary dysplasia. Korean Circ J. 2010;40(3):131–6. doi: 10.4070/kcj.2010.40.3.131 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Shennan AT, Dunn MS, Ohlsson A, Lennox K, Hoskins EM. Abnormal pulmonary outcomes in premature infants: prediction from oxygen requirement in the neonatal period. Pediatrics. 1988;82(4):527–32. doi: 10.1542/peds.82.4.527 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Jobe AH, Bancalari E. Bronchopulmonary dysplasia. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2001;163(7):1723–9. doi: 10.1164/ajrccm.163.7.2011060 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Kim D-H, Kim H-S, Choi CW, Kim E-K, Kim BI, Choi J-H. Risk factors for pulmonary artery hypertension in preterm infants with moderate or severe bronchopulmonary dysplasia. Neonatology. 2012;101(1):40–6. doi: 10.1159/000327891 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Check J, Gotteiner N, Liu X, Su E, Porta N, Steinhorn R, et al. Fetal growth restriction and pulmonary hypertension in premature infants with bronchopulmonary dysplasia. J Perinatol. 2013;33(7):553–7. doi: 10.1038/jp.2012.164 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Zysman-Colman Z, Tremblay GM, Bandeali S, Landry JS. Bronchopulmonary dysplasia - trends over three decades. Paediatr Child Health. 2013;18(2):86–90. doi: 10.1093/pch/18.2.86 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Choi EK, Shin SH, Kim E-K, Kim H-S. Developmental outcomes of preterm infants with bronchopulmonary dysplasia-associated pulmonary hypertension at 18-24 months of corrected age. BMC Pediatr. 2019;19(1):26. doi: 10.1186/s12887-019-1400-3 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Slaughter JL, Pakrashi T, Jones DE, South AP, Shah TA. Echocardiographic detection of pulmonary hypertension in extremely low birth weight infants with bronchopulmonary dysplasia requiring prolonged positive pressure ventilation. J Perinatol. 2011;31(10):635–40. doi: 10.1038/jp.2010.213 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Bancalari E, Claure N. Definitions and diagnostic criteria for bronchopulmonary dysplasia. Semin Perinatol. 2006;30(4):164–70. doi: 10.1053/j.semperi.2006.05.002 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Davidson LM, Berkelhamer SK. Bronchopulmonary Dysplasia: Chronic Lung Disease of Infancy and Long-Term Pulmonary Outcomes. J Clin Med. 2017;6(1):4. doi: 10.3390/jcm6010004 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Margraf LR, Tomashefski JF Jr, Bruce MC, Dahms BB. Morphometric analysis of the lung in bronchopulmonary dysplasia. Am Rev Respir Dis. 1991;143(2):391–400. doi: 10.1164/ajrccm/143.2.391 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Husain AN, Siddiqui NH, Stocker JT. Pathology of arrested acinar development in postsurfactant bronchopulmonary dysplasia. Hum Pathol. 1998;29(7):710–7. doi: 10.1016/s0046-8177(98)90280-5 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Thibeault DW, Mabry SM, Ekekezie II, Zhang X, Truog WE. Collagen scaffolding during development and its deformation with chronic lung disease. Pediatrics. 2003;111(4 Pt 1):766–76. doi: 10.1542/peds.111.4.766 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Jobe AJ. The new BPD: an arrest of lung development. Pediatr Res. 1999;46(6):641–3. doi: 10.1203/00006450-199912000-00007 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Abman SH, Collaco JM, Shepherd EG, Keszler M, Cuevas-Guaman M, Welty SE, et al. Interdisciplinary Care of Children with Severe Bronchopulmonary Dysplasia. J Pediatr. 2017;181:12-28.e1. doi: 10.1016/j.jpeds.2016.10.082 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Watterberg KL, Demers LM, Scott SM, Murphy S. Chorioamnionitis and early lung inflammation in infants in whom bronchopulmonary dysplasia develops. Pediatrics. 1996;97(2):210–5. doi: 10.1542/peds.97.2.210 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Yoon BH, Romero R, Jun JK, Park KH, Park JD, Ghezzi F, et al. Amniotic fluid cytokines (interleukin-6, tumor necrosis factor-alpha, interleukin-1 beta, and interleukin-8) and the risk for the development of bronchopulmonary dysplasia. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1997;177(4):825–30. doi: 10.1016/s0002-9378(97)70276-x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Groneck P, Götze-Speer B, Oppermann M, Eiffert H, Speer CP. Association of pulmonary inflammation and increased microvascular permeability during the development of bronchopulmonary dysplasia: a sequential analysis of inflammatory mediators in respiratory fluids of high-risk preterm neonates. Pediatrics. 1994;93(5):712–8. doi: 10.1542/peds.93.5.712 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Pierce MR, Bancalari E. The role of inflammation in the pathogenesis of bronchopulmonary dysplasia. Pediatr Pulmonol. 1995;19(6):371–8. doi: 10.1002/ppul.1950190611 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Groneck P, Speer CP. Inflammatory mediators and bronchopulmonary dysplasia. Arch Dis Child Fetal Neonatal Ed. 1995;73(1):F1–3. doi: 10.1136/fn.73.1.f1 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Santema HY, Stolk J, Los M, Stoel BC, Tsonaka R, Merth IT. Prediction of lung function and lung density of young adults who had bronchopulmonary dysplasia. ERJ Open Res. 2020;6(4):00157–2020. doi: 10.1183/23120541.00157-2020 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Gonzalez A, Sosenko IR, Chandar J, Hummler H, Claure N, Bancalari E. Influence of infection on patent ductus arteriosus and chronic lung disease in premature infants weighing 1000 grams or less. J Pediatr. 1996;128(4):470–8. doi: 10.1016/s0022-3476(96)70356-6 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Khemani E, McElhinney DB, Rhein L, Andrade O, Lacro RV, Thomas KC, et al. Pulmonary artery hypertension in formerly premature infants with bronchopulmonary dysplasia: clinical features and outcomes in the surfactant era. Pediatrics. 2007;120(6):1260–9. doi: 10.1542/peds.2007-0971 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.McKinney RL, Schmidhoefer JJ, Balasco AL, Machan JT, Hirway P, Keszler M. Severe bronchopulmonary dysplasia: outcomes before and after the implementation of an inpatient multidisciplinary team. J Perinatol. 2021;41(3):544–50. doi: 10.1038/s41372-020-00863-0 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Hysinger E, Friedman N, Jensen E, Zhang H, Piccione J. Bronchoscopy in neonates with severe bronchopulmonary dysplasia in the NICU. J Perinatol. 2019;39(2):263–8. doi: 10.1038/s41372-018-0280-y [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Wilson AC. What does imaging the chest tell us about bronchopulmonary dysplasia? Paediatr Respir Rev. 2010;11(3):158–61. doi: 10.1016/j.prrv.2010.05.005 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Kim JK, Chang YS, Sung S, Ahn SY, Yoo HS, Park WS. Trends in Survival and Incidence of Bronchopulmonary Dysplasia in Extremely Preterm Infants at 23-26 Weeks Gestation. J Korean Med Sci. 2016;31(3):423–9. doi: 10.3346/jkms.2016.31.3.423 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Botet F, Figueras-Aloy J, Miracle-Echegoyen X, Rodríguez-Miguélez JM, Salvia-Roiges MD, Carbonell-Estrany X. Trends in survival among extremely-low-birth-weight infants (less than 1000 g) without significant bronchopulmonary dysplasia. BMC Pediatr. 2012;12:63. doi: 10.1186/1471-2431-12-63 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Ambalavanan N, Van Meurs KP, Perritt R, Carlo WA, Ehrenkranz RA, Stevenson DK, et al. Predictors of death or bronchopulmonary dysplasia in preterm infants with respiratory failure. J Perinatol. 2008;28(6):420–6. doi: 10.1038/jp.2008.18 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Sandri F, Plavka R, Ancora G, Simeoni U, Stranak Z, Martinelli S, et al. Prophylactic or early selective surfactant combined with nCPAP in very preterm infants. Pediatrics. 2010;125(6):e1402-9. doi: 10.1542/peds.2009-2131 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Barbara Engelhardt

20 Sep 2023

Dear Dr. Dr. Setyowireni,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

I have read your report with interest but share the concerns of the reviewers. To make this paper ready for publication you will need to work on a major revision.

The reviewer comments will be a guide for your work.

The following is a summary of my comments: The outcomes reported are concerning and should be compared to most recent reports by others. More information is needed regarding risk factors and the reduction thereof.

Numbers regarding in-born versus out-born babies, extend of prenatal care, prenatal antibiotics, prenatal steroids, mode of delivery, description of Surfactant usage, available

Please submit your revised manuscript by Nov 04 2023 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org . When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols . Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols .

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Barbara Wilson Engelhardt, MD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. We noticed you have some minor occurrence of overlapping text with the following previous publication(s), which needs to be addressed:

- https://doi.org/10.3346/jkms.2016.31.3.423

- https://doi.org/10.1053/j.semperi.2006.05.002

- http://dx.doi.org/10.1513/AnnalsATS.201709-756FR

- https://doi.org/10.3346/jkms.2016.31.3.423

In your revision ensure you cite all your sources (including your own works), and quote or rephrase any duplicated text outside the methods section. Further consideration is dependent on these concerns being addressed

3. In your Data Availability statement, you have not specified where the minimal data set underlying the results described in your manuscript can be found. PLOS defines a study's minimal data set as the underlying data used to reach the conclusions drawn in the manuscript and any additional data required to replicate the reported study findings in their entirety. All PLOS journals require that the minimal data set be made fully available. For more information about our data policy, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability.

Upon re-submitting your revised manuscript, please upload your study’s minimal underlying data set as either Supporting Information files or to a stable, public repository and include the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers within your revised cover letter. For a list of acceptable repositories, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-recommended-repositories . Any potentially identifying patient information must be fully anonymized.

Important: If there are ethical or legal restrictions to sharing your data publicly, please explain these restrictions in detail. Please see our guidelines for more information on what we consider unacceptable restrictions to publicly sharing data: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions . Note that it is not acceptable for the authors to be the sole named individuals responsible for ensuring data access.

We will update your Data Availability statement to reflect the information you provide in your cover letter.

4. PLOS requires an ORCID iD for the corresponding author in Editorial Manager on papers submitted after December 6th, 2016. Please ensure that you have an ORCID iD and that it is validated in Editorial Manager. To do this, go to ‘Update my Information’ (in the upper left-hand corner of the main menu), and click on the Fetch/Validate link next to the ORCID field. This will take you to the ORCID site and allow you to create a new iD or authenticate a pre-existing iD in Editorial Manager. Please see the following video for instructions on linking an ORCID iD to your Editorial Manager account: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_xcclfuvtxQ.

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Partly

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? -->?>

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: N/A

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available??>

The PLOS Data policy

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English??>

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

Reviewer #1: An interesting read. There are quite a few grammatical and sentence formulation errors which I think the authors should consider revising. Overall, these are my comments:

1) At the start of the discussion part, it has been mentioned that aggressive mechanical ventilation might be the cause of lung damage and severe respiratory symptoms in BPD. However, later, it has been said that mechanical ventilation had a mortality benefit in BPD patients. I believe the authors should clarify this area further to explain the role of mechanical ventilation in the disease. Devote a separate paragraph to summarise all the relevant findings in present study, existing literature and plausible explanation for the same.

2) In continuation with the above, what may be the reason that mild BPD patients had more frequent use of mechanical ventilation than moderate or severe BPD patients? The number of ventilator-days also seem to be more in mild BPD patients.

3) Considering the confusing findings and retrospective design of the study, the authors may do a power analysis for their primary outcome parameters to put things in perspective.

4) Finally, not just mortality but long-term morbidity of these subset of patients needs to be studied in future.

Reviewer #2: Dear Dwi Kisworo Setyowireni,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript entitled "Outcome of Infants with Bronchopulmonary Dysplasia" for consideration. I appreciate the opportunity to review your work, contributing to the ongoing discussion on bronchopulmonary dysplasia. After a careful evaluation, I have identified several areas that would benefit from further clarification and revision to enhance the manuscript's scientific rigor and readability. Below are my comments, broken down by section, which I hope you find constructive for refining your paper.

Introduction

1. Relevance of Citations: The introduction could benefit from more recent literature to establish the field's current state.

2. Problem Statement: The problem statement could be more precisely articulated. What is the specific gap in the existing literature that this study aims to fill?

3. Hypothesis/Research Question: It would be beneficial to clearly state the research questions or hypotheses. This would help the reader understand what to expect from the study.

Method

1. Sample Size Justification: There needs to be more discussion about how the sample size was determined. Was a power analysis conducted?

2. Demographics: More details about the participant demographics might make the sample more transparent.

3. Variables: It would be helpful to define the independent and dependent variables more precisely.

4. Statistical Tests: Mention the specific statistical tests that were employed for data analysis.

5. Ethical Considerations: No mention of ethical approval for human/animal studies. Is it applicable? If yes, it should be included.

Results

1. Data Presentation: More tables and/or graphs could be useful for visualizing the data.

2. Missing Data: There needs to be a mention of how missing data were handled.

3. Statistical Significance: Were the results statistically significant? P-values and confidence intervals could offer more insight.

Discussion

1. Interpretation of Findings: The discussion would benefit from a more in-depth interpretation. How do these results add to the current body of knowledge?

2. Limitations: The discussion of limitations is brief and could be more thorough.

3. Future Work: Suggestions for future research still need to be included. Addressing this could round out the paper effectively.

4. Practical Implications: Mention the practical implications of your findings could strengthen the impact of your paper.

Overall Comments

1. Cohesion and Flow: Ensure a logical flow of ideas from the introduction to the discussion.

2. Technical Jargon: Consider defining technical terms so the paper is accessible to a broader audience.

3. References: A uniform citation style is needed; some references are not in the same format as others.

4. Abstract: An abstract summarizing the entire paper, including key findings and implications, should be added.

5. Conclusions: A separate conclusions section summarizing key findings and their implications could make the paper more impactful.

**********

what does this mean? ). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy

Reviewer #1: Yes:  Dr. Saikat Banerjee, MD Respiratory Medicine, Micromasters (MIT) in Statistics and Data Science

Reviewer #2: Yes:  Mohammad Arkani

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/ . PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org . Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2025 Nov 20;20(11):e0337083. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0337083.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 1


12 Nov 2024

Response to Reviewers' comments

Thank you very much for reviewing our paper and providing constructive and invaluable feedback. We have carefully considered your comments and have provided responses in blue font below each one.

Reviewer #1: An interesting read. There are quite a few grammatical and sentence formulation errors which I think the authors should consider revising. Overall, these are my comments:

Response:

We have carefully edited the grammatical and sentence errors and provide track changes and clean copy of manuscript.

1) At the start of the discussion part, it has been mentioned that aggressive mechanical ventilation might be the cause of lung damage and severe respiratory symptoms in BPD. However, later, it has been said that mechanical ventilation had a mortality benefit in BPD patients. I believe the authors should clarify this area further to explain the role of mechanical ventilation in the disease. Devote a separate paragraph to summarise all the relevant findings in present study, existing literature and plausible explanation for the same.

Response:

Thank you, we have added this paragraph into the discussion section:

The role of mechanical ventilation in bronchopulmonary dysplasia (BPD) is complex, balancing potential harm and necessary support. Initially, aggressive mechanical ventilation was linked to lung injury and severe respiratory symptoms in BPD due to volutrauma and barotrauma, which exacerbate inflammation and hinder lung development. However, our study found that mechanical ventilation was associated with a decreased risk of mortality among BPD infants under 7 months, suggesting its critical role in managing acute respiratory failure. This indicates that while mechanical ventilation can contribute to lung damage, it remains an essential intervention when used appropriately, particularly in severe cases of BPD. Therefore, a nuanced understanding of mechanical ventilation is necessary to optimize care strategies, maximizing its benefits while minimizing risks. Further research is needed to identify the best practices for ventilation that protect lung health in these vulnerable infants.

2) In continuation with the above, what may be the reason that mild BPD patients had more frequent use of mechanical ventilation than moderate or severe BPD patients? The number of ventilator-days also seem to be more in mild BPD patients.

Response:

Thank you, we have added this paragraph into the discussion section:

The higher use of mechanical ventilation in mild BPD patients compared to moderate or severe cases may stem from several factors. Mild BPD often presents with transient respiratory distress, prompting initial ventilation for stabilization. Hospital protocols might advocate for aggressive management of any respiratory issues, and variability in symptom presentation could lead to more cautious approaches. Additionally, surfactant therapy may influence the decision to initiate ventilation. Early intervention strategies and prolonged hospital stays for monitoring could also contribute to the increased use of mechanical ventilation in these infants. Overall, these factors reflect clinical practices aimed at preventing worsening respiratory conditions.

3) Considering the confusing findings and retrospective design of the study, the authors may do a power analysis for their primary outcome parameters to put things in perspective.

Response:

Thank you for the feedback. Yes, a power analysis was conducted and its value is 80.2%.

4) Finally, not just mortality but long-term morbidity of these subset of patients needs to be studied in future.

Response:

Thank you for your positive feedback. We indeed aim to extend our study to evaluate long-term morbidities of children with BPD and identify potential predictors. We have incorporated this additional sentence into the manuscript:

Longitudinal studies involving multiple institutions and employing prospective cohort designs are warranted to provide a more comprehensive understanding of the long-term impact and morbidities of BPD and chronic lung disease.

Reviewer #2: Dear Dwi Kisworo Setyowireni,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript entitled "Outcome of Infants with Bronchopulmonary Dysplasia" for consideration. I appreciate the opportunity to review your work, contributing to the ongoing discussion on bronchopulmonary dysplasia. After a careful evaluation, I have identified several areas that would benefit from further clarification and revision to enhance the manuscript's scientific rigor and readability. Below are my comments, broken down by section, which I hope you find constructive for refining your paper.

Response:

We sincerely appreciate your positive comments and the constrictive feedback you have provided. Thank you for your valuable insights and contributions to our work.

Introduction

1. Relevance of Citations: The introduction could benefit from more recent literature to establish the field's current state.

Response:

Thank you, we have added two recent literatures in the introduction section.

The long-term impact of BPD includes persistent respiratory symptoms and airflow obstruction, potentially affecting lung function into adulthood [2,3].

Reff 2. Tracy MK, Berkelhamer, SK. Bronchopulmonary Dysplasia and Pulmonary Outcomes of Prematurity. Pediatr Ann. 2019;48(4):e148-53.

Reff 3. Collaco JM, McGrath-Morrow SA. Bronchopulmonary Dysplasia as a Determinant of Respiratory Outcomes in Adult Life. Pediatr Pulmonol. 2021; 56(11): 3464–71. doi:10.1002/ppul.25301.

2. Problem Statement: The problem statement could be more precisely articulated. What is the specific gap in the existing literature that this study aims to fill?

Response:

Thank you for the feedback. We have revised the paragraph to clearly articulate the problem statement and gaps in the Introduction section below:

Despite the significant global burden of bronchopulmonary dysplasia (BPD), there is a notable scarcity of data regarding its incidence and outcomes in Indonesia. Therefore, this study aimed to evaluate the outcomes and predictors of mortality among children with BPD in Yogyakarta, Indonesia. By elucidating the management and prognosis of BPD in resource-limited settings, our findings aim to provide valuable insights into optimizing care strategies for affected children in similar contexts.

3. Hypothesis/Research Question: It would be beneficial to clearly state the research questions or hypotheses. This would help the reader understand what to expect from the study.

Response:

Thank you, we have incorporated additional sentence regarding the hypothesis below:

Our hypotheses were that the BPD burden is significant and simple predictors may independently predict mortality among Indonesian children with BPD.

Method

1. Sample Size Justification: There needs to be more discussion about how the sample size was determined. Was a power analysis conducted?

Response:

Thank you for the feedback. Sample size was calculated using formula for non-paired categorical comparative analysis using reference data from previous studies. A power analysis was conducted and its value was 80.2%.

2. Demographics: More details about the participant demographics might make the sample more transparent.

Response:

Thank you. This study included 65 subjects from Yogyakarta, 16 subjects from Central Java, 2 subjects from East Java, 1 subject from Papua, and 1 subject from West Kalimantan.

3. Variables: It would be helpful to define the independent and dependent variables more precisely.

Response:

Thank you, we have included these variables in the statistical analysis to elucidate their association with the dependent variable, mortality. The independent variables (predictors) included gender, birth weight, birth weight/gestational age, surfactant therapy, congenital anomaly, neonatal sepsis, mechanical ventilation, respiratory problems (cough, dyspnea, wheezing), PMA < 28 weeks, the presence of pulmonary hypertension and congenital heart disease.

4. Statistical Tests: Mention the specific statistical tests that were employed for data analysis.

Response:

A multivariate logistic regression model was used to identify independent predictors of mortality in infants with BPD.

5. Ethical Considerations: No mention of ethical approval for human/animal studies. Is it applicable? If yes, it should be included.

Response:

This study has been approved by Ethical Committee Faculty of Medicine, Public Health and Nursing Universitas Gadjah Mada (KE/FK/0171/EC/2021).

Results

1. Data Presentation: More tables and/or graphs could be useful for visualizing the data.

Response:

Thank you, we have provided three tables and a figure to visualize the data.

Table 1. Characteristics of 85 BPD patients in Yogyakarta, Indonesia.

Table 2. Echocardiographic findings in patients with BPD

Table 3. Multivariate analysis of the predictors of mortality in BPD infants before the age of 7 months old

Figure 1. Patient selection algorithm

2. Missing Data: There needs to be a mention of how missing data were handled.

Response:

Thank you, we addressed missing data using complete case Analysis. This approach involved analysing only those cases where data were available for all variables of interest. We have added this into the Method section.

3. Statistical Significance: Were the results statistically significant? P-values and confidence intervals could offer more insight.

Response:

Thank you, we have provided both p values and 95% confidence intervals in the manuscript.

Discussion

1. Interpretation of Findings: The discussion would benefit from a more in-depth interpretation. How do these results add to the current body of knowledge?

Response:

Thank you, we have added a paragraph to address this in the discussion session:

The study adds to current knowledge by highlighting high mortality rates in infants with BPD in Yogyakarta, Indonesia, underscoring the critical role of low post-menstrual age (<28 weeks) as an independent predictor of mortality. Interestingly, mechanical ventilation was associated with lower mortality, contrasting with earlier findings where it was linked to lung damage in BPD. This suggests that careful, possibly less aggressive, ventilation strategies may improve survival. These results reinforce the importance of early, targeted interventions for high-risk infants in similar healthcare settings.

2. Limitations: The discussion of limitations is brief and could be more thorough.

Response:

Thank you, we have elaborated the limitations of our study into this paragraph:

Our study has several limitations. Firstly, its retrospective nature relied on medical records, which may have led to incomplete data capture. Additionally, the study was conducted at a single hospital with a relatively small sample size, and approximately 15% of medical records were inactive, potentially introducing selection bias. Secondly, the criteria used to define BPD varied over time, reflecting evolving understanding of the condition. This inconsistency highlights the need for standardized criteria to ensure uniformity in diagnosis and data interpretation.

3. Future Work: Suggestions for future research still need to be included. Addressing this could round out the paper effectively.

Response:

Thank you, we have added this sentence for future study:

Longitudinal studies involving multiple medical institutions and employing prospective cohort designs are warranted to provide a more comprehensive understanding of the long-term impact and morbidities of BPD and chronic lung disease.

4. Practical Implications: Mention the practical implications of your findings could strengthen the impact of your paper.

Response:

Thank you, we have added a paragraph revealing the impact of our study to clinical practice below:

Our study revealed a significant burden of bronchopulmonary dysplasia, with nearly half of the infants diagnosed with BPD in our hospital died within seven months of life. Notably, post-menstrual age of less than 28 weeks was associated with an elevated risk of mortality in infants with BPD. These findings underscore the importance of informing policymakers to develop effective prevention strategies for BPD in Indonesian infants. Specifically, initiatives targeting the prevention and appropriate management of prematurity, particularly in infants with PMA less than 28 weeks, are important to mitigating mortality associated with BPD.

Overall Comments

1. Cohesion and Flow: Ensure a logical flow of ideas from the introduction to the discussion.

Response:

Thank you, we have made efforts to enhance the manuscript's cohesion and flowing.

2. Technical Jargon: Consider defining technical terms so the paper is accessible to a broader audience.

Response:

Thank you, we have revised the manuscript accordingly as suggested.

3. References: A uniform citation style is needed; some references are not in the same format as others.

Response:

Thank you, we have revised the manuscript accordingly as suggested.

4. Abstract: An abstract summarizing the entire paper, including key findings and implications, should be added.

Response:

Thank you, we have revised the manuscript accordingly as suggested.

5. Conclusions: A separate conclusions section summarizing key findings and their implications could make the paper more impactful.

Response:

Thank you, we have revised the manuscript accordingly as suggested.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers_ikm_6.11.2024.docx

pone.0337083.s003.docx (64.6KB, docx)

Decision Letter 1

Stefan Grosek

5 Nov 2025

<p>Outcome of Infants with Bronchopulmonary Dysplasia

PONE-D-23-09921R1

Dear Dr. Setyowireni,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice will be generated when your article is formally accepted. Please note, if your institution has a publishing partnership with PLOS and your article meets the relevant criteria, all or part of your publication costs will be covered. Please make sure your user information is up-to-date by logging into Editorial Manager at Editorial Manager®  and clicking the ‘Update My Information' link at the top of the page. For questions related to billing, please contact billing support .

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Stefan Grosek, Ph.D., M.D.,

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #3: (No Response)

Reviewer #4: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions??>

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #3: No

Reviewer #4: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? -->?>

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #3: No

Reviewer #4: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available??>

The PLOS Data policy

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English??>

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #3: No

Reviewer #4: Yes

**********

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #3: (No Response)

Reviewer #4: The article is very interesting, with a clear goal, well done with conclusions and relevant, adequate literature.

Acceptable for publication based on review

**********

what does this mean? ). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy

Reviewer #1: Yes:  Dr. Saikat Banerjee, MD, DM, Pulmonary, Critical Care and Sleep Medicine, MITx Micromasters in Statistics and Data Science

Reviewer #3: No

Reviewer #4: Yes:  Miljana Z Jovandaric

**********

Acceptance letter

Stefan Grosek

PONE-D-23-09921R1

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Setyowireni,

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now being handed over to our production team.

At this stage, our production department will prepare your paper for publication. This includes ensuring the following:

* All references, tables, and figures are properly cited

* All relevant supporting information is included in the manuscript submission,

* There are no issues that prevent the paper from being properly typeset

You will receive further instructions from the production team, including instructions on how to review your proof when it is ready. Please keep in mind that we are working through a large volume of accepted articles, so please give us a few days to review your paper and let you know the next and final steps.

Lastly, if your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

You will receive an invoice from PLOS for your publication fee after your manuscript has reached the completed accept phase. If you receive an email requesting payment before acceptance or for any other service, this may be a phishing scheme. Learn how to identify phishing emails and protect your accounts at https://explore.plos.org/phishing.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at customercare@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Professor Stefan Grosek

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Associated Data

    This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

    Supplementary Materials

    S1 File. Dataset BPD.

    (PDF)

    pone.0337083.s001.pdf (203.6KB, pdf)
    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers_ikm_6.11.2024.docx

    pone.0337083.s003.docx (64.6KB, docx)

    Data Availability Statement

    All relevant data are within the paper and its Supporting information files.


    Articles from PLOS One are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES