4.7 Article

Prospective, multicenter evaluation of risk factors associated with invasive bacterial infection in children with cancer, neutropenia, and fever

期刊

JOURNAL OF CLINICAL ONCOLOGY
卷 19, 期 14, 页码 3415-3421

出版社

AMER SOC CLINICAL ONCOLOGY
DOI: 10.1200/JCO.2001.19.14.3415

关键词

-

类别

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose: To identify clinical and laboratory parameters present at the time of a first evaluation that could help predict which children with cancer, fever, and neutropenia were at high risk or low risk for an invasive bacterial infection. Patients and Methods: Over a 17-month period, all children with cancer, fever, and neutropenia admitted to five hospitals in Santiago, Chile, were enrolled onto a prospective protocol. Associations between admission parameters and risk for invasive bacterial infection were assessed by univariate and logistic regression analyses. Results: A total of 447 febrile neutropenic episodes occurred in 257 children. Five parameters were statistically independent risk factors for an invasive bacterial infection. Ranked by order of significance, they were as follows: C-reactive protein levels of 90 mg/L or higher (relative risk [RR], 4.2; 95% confidence interval [CI], 3.6 to 4.8); presence of hypotension (RR, 2.7; 95% CI, 2.3 to 3.2); relapse of leukemia as cancer type (RR, 1.8, 95% CI, 1.7 to 2.3); platelet count less than or equal to 50,000/mm(3) (RR, 1.7; 95% CI, 1.4 to 2.2); and recent (less than or equal to 7 days) chemotherapy (RR, 1.3; 95% CI, 1.1 to 1.6). Other previously postulated risk factors (magnitude of fever, monocyte count) were not independent risk factors in this study population. Conclusion: In a large population of children, common clinical and laboratory admission parameters were identified that can help predict the risk for an invasive bacterial infection. These results encourage the possibility of a more selective management strategy for these children. (C) 2001 by American Society of Clinical Oncology.

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