Neonatal Sepsis Risk Calculator Research Articles

How to assess early-onset neonatal sepsis? Comparison of three detection strategies

IntroductionEarly-onset neonatal sepsis (EONS) can cause significant morbidity and mortality, especially if it is not detected early. Given the decrease in its incidence in the past few decades, it is important to find a balance between reducing the use of diagnostic tests and continuing to detect affected patients. We compared 3 detection strategies in patients with risk factors (RFs) for infection: laboratory screening (S1), the Neonatal Sepsis Risk Calculator (S2) and clinical observation (S3). Patients and methodsRetrospective observational study in neonates born at 34 weeks of gestation or later and with RFs or symptoms compatible with EONS. We analysed outcomes in our unit with the use of laboratory screening (S1) and compared them with the other two strategies (S2 and S3) to contemplate whether to modify our protocol. ResultsThe study included 754 patients, and the most frequent RFs were prolonged rupture of membranes (35.5%) and maternal colonization by Streptococcus agalactiae (38.5%).Strategies S2 and S3 would decrease the performance of laboratory tests (S1, 56.8% of patients; S2, 9.9%; S3, 22.4%; P < 0.01), hospital admissions (S1, 11%; S2, 6.9%; S3, 7.9%; P < 0.01) and the use of antibiotherapy (S1, 8.6%; S2, 6.7%; S3, 6.4%; P < 0.01).Sepsis was diagnosed in 13 patients, and it would have been detected with S2 and S3 except in 1 patient who had asymptomatic bacteriemia by Enterococcus faecalis.No patient with mild and self-limited symptoms in whom antibiotherapy was not started received a diagnosis of sepsis later on. ConclusionClose clinical observation seems to be a safe option and could reduce the use of diagnostic tests, hospital admission and unnecessary antibiotherapy. The watchful waiting approach in patients with mild and self-limiting symptoms in the first hours post birth does not appear to be associated with failure to identify sepsis.

¿Cómo evaluar la sepsis neonatal de inicio precoz? Estudio comparativo de tres estrategias de detección

IntroductionEarly-onset neonatal sepsis can cause significant morbidity and mortality, especially if it is not detected early. Given the decrease in its incidence in the past few decades, it is important to find a balance between reducing the use of diagnostic tests and continuing to detect affected patients. We compared 3 detection strategies in patients with risk factors (RFs) for infection: laboratory screening (S1), the neonatal sepsis risk calculator (S2) and clinical observation (S3). Patients and methodsRetrospective observational study in neonates born at 34 weeks or gestation or later and with RFs or symptoms compatible with early-onset neonatal sepsis. We analysed outcomes in our unit with the use of laboratory screening (S1) and compared them with the other two strategies (S2 and S3) to contemplate whether to modify our protocol. ResultsThe study included 754 patients, and the most frequent RFs were prolonged rupture of membranes (35.5%) and maternal colonization by Streptococcus agalactiae (38.5%).Strategies S2 and S3 would decrease the performance of laboratory tests (S1, 56.8% of patients; S2, 9.9%; S3, 22.4%; P<.01), hospital admissions (S1, 11%; S2, 6.9%; S3, 7.9%; P<.01) and the use of antibiotherapy (S1, 8.6%; S2, 6.7%; S3, 6.4%; P<.01).Sepsis was diagnosed in 13 patients, and it would have been detected with S2 and S3 except in 1 patient who had asymptomatic bacteriemia by Enterococcusfaecalis.No patient with mild and self-limited symptoms in whom antibiotherapy was not started received a diagnosis of sepsis later on. ConclusionsClose clinical observation seems to be a safe option and could reduce the use of diagnostic tests, hospital admission and unnecessary antibiotherapy. The watchful waiting approach in patients with mild and self-limiting symptoms in the first hours post birth does not appear to be associated with failure to identify sepsis.

Should we give antibiotics to neonates with mild non-progressive symptoms? A comparison of serial clinical observation and the neonatal sepsis risk calculator.

ObjectiveTo compare two strategies [the neonatal sepsis risk calculator (NSC) and the updated serial clinical observation approach (SCO)] for the management of asymptomatic neonates at risk of early-onset sepsis (EOS) and neonates with mild non-progressive symptoms in the first hours of life.MethodsThis was a single-center, retrospective cohort study conducted over 15 months (01/01/2019–31/03/2020). All live births at ≥34 weeks of gestation were included. Infants were managed using SCO and decisions were compared with those retrospectively projected by the NSC. The proportion of infants recommended for antibiotics or laboratory testing was compared in both strategies. McNemar's non-parametric test was used to assess significant differences in matched proportions.ResultsAmong the 3,445 neonates (late-preterm, n = 178; full-term, n = 3,267) 262 (7.6%) presented with symptoms of suspected EOS. There were no cases of culture-proven EOS. Only 1.9% of the neonates were treated with antibiotics (median antibiotic treatment, 2 days) and 4.0% were evaluated. According to NSC, antibiotics would have been administered in 5.4% of infants (absolute difference between SCO and NSC, 3.51%; 95% CI, 3.14–3.71%; p <0.0001) and 5.6% of infants would have undergone “rule out sepsis” (absolute difference between SCO and NSC, 1.63%, 95% CI 1.10–2.05; p <0.0001).ConclusionSCO minimizes laboratory testing and unnecessary antibiotics in infants at risk of EOS or with mild non-progressive symptoms, without the risk of a worse neonatal outcome. The NSC recommends almost three times more antibiotics than the SCO without improving neonatal outcomes.

Can a neonatal sepsis risk calculator safely decrease unnecessary evaluation for neonatal sepsis and the number of newborns exposed to antibiotics?

Can a neonatal sepsis risk calculator safely decrease unnecessary evaluation for neonatal sepsis and the number of newborns exposed to antibiotics?