4.6 Article

Lumbar Puncture and Meningitis in Infants with Proven Early- or Late-Onset Sepsis: An Italian Prospective Multicenter Observational Study

期刊

MICROORGANISMS
卷 11, 期 6, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/microorganisms11061546

关键词

lumbar puncture; meningitis; sepsis; newborn; prematurity; group B streptococcus; Escherichia coli

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study evaluated the rates of lumbar puncture in infants with culture-proven sepsis. The results showed that lumbar puncture was infrequently performed after antibiotic initiation, leading to a reduced ability to identify the pathogen in cerebrospinal fluid culture. Polymerase chain reaction increased the probability of positive results compared to microbiological culture.
Background: To evaluate the rates of lumbar puncture (LP) in infants with culture-proven sepsis. Study design: We prospectively enrolled 400 infants with early- or late-onset sepsis due to Group B streptococcus (GBS) or Eschericha coli, diagnosed within 90 days of life. Rates of LP and potential variables associated with LP performance were evaluated. Moreover, cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) characteristics and results of the molecular analysis were investigated. Results: LP was performed in 228/400 (57.0%) infants; 123/228 LPs (53.9%) were performed after antibiotic initiation, hampering the ability to identify the pathogen in the CSF culture. However, polymerase chain reaction increased the probability of positive results of CSF analysis compared to microbiological culture (28/79, 35.4% vs. 14/79, 17.7%, p = 0.001). Severe clinical presentation and GBS infection were associated with higher LP rates. The rate of meningitis was 28.5% (65/228). Conclusions: Rates of LP are low in culture-proven neonatal sepsis and antibiotics are frequently given before LP is carried out. Thus meningitis may be underestimated, and the chances of giving an effective therapy to the newborn are reduced. LP should be performed before the start of antibiotics when there is a clinical suspicion of infection.

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