4.7 Article

Critical pertussis: A multi-centric analysis of risk factors and outcomes in Oman

期刊

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijid.2021.04.046

关键词

Critical pertussis; Absolute neutrophil count; Leukocytosis

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study aimed to identify risk factors and outcomes of critical pertussis in children under 13 years old. Results showed that higher white blood cell count, absolute lymphocyte count, and absolute neutrophil count were significant predictors of critical pertussis.
Objectives: To identify risk factors and outcomes of patients with critical pertussis. Design: Retrospective observational cohort study. Setting: Sultan Qaboos University Hospital and The Royal Hospital, Muscat, Oman. Subjects: Children aged <13 years presenting to the emergency departments and diagnosed with laboratory-confirmed pertussis by polymerase chain reaction between January 2013 and December 2018. Measurements and main results: In total, 157 patients were diagnosed with pertussis, of which 12% (n = 19) had critical pertussis. Patients with critical pertussis had a higher white blood cell count (WBCC) [adjusted odds ratio (aOR) 1.05; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.02-1.08; P = 0.003], absolute lymphocyte count (ALC) (aOR 1.08; 95% CI 1.03-1.15; P = 0.004) and absolute neutrophil count (ANC) (aOR 1.05; 95% CI 1.01-1.10; P = 0.032) than patients with non-critical pertussis, even after multi-variate adjustment. The area under the curve for discriminatory accuracy of laboratory variables was 0.75 (95% CI 0.65-0.85), 0.74 (95% CI 0.64-0.84) and 0.72 (95% CI 0.60-0.83) for maximum WBCC, ALC and ANC, respectively, with Youden's cut-off values of 31.5 x 10(9)/L, 19.9 x 10(9)/L and 5.0 x 10(9)/L, respectively. Conclusions: In children, higher WBCC, ALC and ANC were significant predictors of critical pertussis. A cut-off level of 31.5 x 10(9)/L for WBCC was associated with critical pertussis. (C) 2021 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd on behalf of International Society for Infectious Diseases.

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

4.7
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