4.6 Article

Hemoglobinuria for the early identification of STEC-HUS in high-risk children: data from the ItalKid-HUS Network

期刊

EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF PEDIATRICS
卷 180, 期 9, 页码 2791-2795

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00431-021-04016-z

关键词

STEC-HUS; Bloody diarrhea; Shiga toxin; Hemolytic uremic syndrome

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The presence of hemoglobinuria/hematuria in children with Stx2+ bloody diarrhea is a sensitive and specific marker for early identification of HUS, with a sensitivity of 100% and a specificity of 85%. Monitoring with urine dipstick/urinalysis is strongly recommended to identify HUS in these patients.
Hemolytic uremic syndrome (HUS) represents one of the main causes of severe acute kidney injury in children. The most frequent form of HUS is caused by Shiga toxin-2 (Stx2)-producing Escherichia coli. Hemoglobinuria and hematuria are markers of glomerular damage, but their use has never been validated in HUS. We retrospectively analyzed the presence of hemoglobinuria/urinary red blood cells (RBCs) in children with Stx2-positive bloody diarrhea (BD) or with already ongoing STEC-HUS with the aim of validating its role in early identifying HUS. We reviewed all the pediatric patients with Stx2+ BD (group 1) and with ongoing HUS (group 2) referred to our center from 2010 to 2019. A total of 100 children were eligible for the study. In group 1, 22 patients showed hemoglobinuria/hematuria, while 41 remained negative. In 15/22 positive patients (68.2%), blood tests ruled in HUS, while in 7 (31.8%), HUS was excluded. Among the 41 patients persistently negative for hemoglobinuria/hematuria, no one developed HUS. The 37 STEC-HUS children (group 2) all had hemoglobinuria/RBCs at admission. Conclusion: Hemoglobinuria/hematuria for the diagnosis of HUS in children with Stx2+ BD showed a sensitivity of 100% and a specificity of 85%. We strongly recommend patients with BD carrying Stx2 in stools to be closely monitored with urine dipstick/urinalysis to early identify HUS.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据