4.7 Article

Neonatal listeriosis in the UK 2004-2014

期刊

JOURNAL OF INFECTION
卷 74, 期 3, 页码 236-242

出版社

W B SAUNDERS CO LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.jinf.2016.11.007

关键词

Listeriosis; Neonatal listeriosis; Puerperal sepsis; Guidelines; Early-onset neonatal infection; Sepsis; Infant

资金

  1. Medical Research Council [G1000758] Funding Source: Medline
  2. Asthma UK [MRC-AsthmaUKCentre, MRC-Asthma UK Centre] Funding Source: researchfish
  3. Medical Research Council [G1000758] Funding Source: researchfish

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: To define the clinical features and outcomes of neonatal listeriosis, and identify the maternal risk factors to seek scope for improvement. Methods: Neonatal listeriosis was identified prospectively from a United Kingdom neonatal infection surveillance network (neonIN) between 2004 and 2014. The participating neonatal units completed a study-specific proforma. Results: The incidence of neonatal listeriosis was 3.4 per 100,000 live births. Of the 21 cases identified, 19 were confirmed with a median gestational age of 33 weeks and a median birth weight of 1960 g. The majority had clinical features (95%, 18/19), presented within the first 24 h (95%, 18/19), and received penicillin empirically (94%, 18/19). The neonatal case-fatality rate was 21% (24% if probable cases were included). A proportion of mothers were investigated (60%, 12/18) and diagnosed with listeriosis (58%, 7/12); 32% (6/19) were treated with antibiotics but only 33% (6/12) included penicillin. Discussion: Despite its rarity and the prompt and appropriate use of antibiotics neonatal listeriosis has a high case-fatality rate. There is room for improvement in the adherence to the empiric antibiotic choice for puerperal sepsis, according to the national guidelines as this, would target listeriosis. Strategies should be in place to prevent pregnancy-associated listeriosis in higher risk population. (C) 2016 The British Infection Association. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

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