4.6 Article

Risk factors for poor prognosis in children with refractory purulent meningitis and the discharge criteria

Journal

JOURNAL OF INFECTION AND PUBLIC HEALTH
Volume 11, Issue 2, Pages 238-242

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE LONDON
DOI: 10.1016/j.jiph.2017.07.007

Keywords

Children; Refractory purulent meningitis; Prognosis; Discharge criteria; Antibiotic course

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study was undertaken to investigate the relationship between cerebrospinal fluid abnormalities and prognosis in pediatric refractory purulent meningitis. Ninety cases of pediatric refractory purulent meningitis were stratified into good (n =33) or poor (n= 57) prognosis groups according to the Glasgow clinical outcome scores. The symptoms, laboratory results, and prognosis were compared by using univariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses. Univariate analysis showed that poor prognosis was associated with: unequal pupil size in both eyes; positive Babinski sign; CSF-WBC >500 x 10(6)/L, CSF protein concentration >1.0 g/L, CSF glucose content <1.5 mmol/L; initial procalcitonin result >0.1 ng/dL on admission; hemoglobin <90 g/L during hospitalization; abnormal head imaging, and abnormal electroencephalogram. On multivariate analysis only unequal pupil size in both eyes and CSF glucose content <1.5 mmol/L remained significant. The CSF protein concentration was significantly different between groups at discharge. The cutoff value was 0.68 g/L. We recommend that discharged patients meet the following criteria: full antibiotic course and over 1 week of defervesce, disappearance of acute phase symptoms, CSF-WBC <28 x 106/L, CSF glucose >1.75 mmol/L, and protein <0.68 g/L. The patient may be discharged for follow-up if no relapse occurs during 3-5 days of observation after drug withdrawal. (C) 2017 Published by Elsevier Limited on behalf of King Saud Bin Abdulaziz University for Health Sciences. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available