4.3 Article

Neonatal Staphylococcus Aureus Sepsis: a 20-year Western Australian experience

期刊

JOURNAL OF PERINATOLOGY
卷 42, 期 11, 页码 1440-1445

出版社

SPRINGERNATURE
DOI: 10.1038/s41372-022-01440-3

关键词

-

资金

  1. CAUL

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study aimed to characterize neonatal Staphylococcus aureus (SA) sepsis in Western Australia, examine risk factors, and compare outcomes to control infants. The incidence of SA sepsis decreased over the years, and infants with SA sepsis had longer ventilatory support duration and worse neurodevelopmental outcomes.
Objectives The purpose of this study was to characterise neonatal Staphylococcus aureus (SA) sepsis in Western Australia (WA) between 2001 and 2020 at the sole tertiary neonatal intensive care unit (NICU), examine risk factors for sepsis in the cohort, and compare short- and long-term outcomes to control infants without any sepsis. Methods Retrospective cohort study at the Neonatal Directorate at King Edward Memorial Hospital (KEMH) and Perth Children's Hospital, using electronic databases and patient medical records. Results The overall incidence of SA sepsis was 0.10 per 1000 live births (62/614207). From 2001 to 2010 the incidence was 0.13/1000 live births, reducing to 0.07/1000 live births from 2011 to 2020. SA was most frequently isolated from endotracheal aspirates, and infants with SA sepsis had longer median duration of ventilatory support than those without any sepsis (31 days vs 18 days respectively, p < 0.001). In our cohort, SA sepsis was associated with worse neurodevelopmental outcomes compared to infants without any sepsis. Conclusions The incidence of neonatal SA sepsis has reduced over the last 20 years, suggesting potential effectiveness of the preventative interventions implemented. Endotracheal tube (ETT) colonisation and prolonged ventilation may be under-recognised as potential sources of SA infection. Our study suggests SA sepsis may negatively impact neurodevelopmental outcomes.

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

4.3
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