Association between Congenital Anomalies and Late-Onset Bacterial Infections in Neonates Admitted to Neonatal Intensive Care Units in Australia and New Zealand: A Population-Based Cohort Study.

Neonatology Pub Date : 2024-09-19 DOI:10.1159/000540276
Abrar Ahmad Chughtai, Naomi Spotswood, Tobias Strunk, Trisha Parmar, Tim Schindler, Himanshu Popat, Sharon Sue Wen Chow, Kei Lui
{"title":"Association between Congenital Anomalies and Late-Onset Bacterial Infections in Neonates Admitted to Neonatal Intensive Care Units in Australia and New Zealand: A Population-Based Cohort Study.","authors":"Abrar Ahmad Chughtai, Naomi Spotswood, Tobias Strunk, Trisha Parmar, Tim Schindler, Himanshu Popat, Sharon Sue Wen Chow, Kei Lui","doi":"10.1159/000540276","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Compromised neonatal intensive care unit neonates are at risk of acquiring late-onset infections (late-onset sepsis [LOS]). Neonates born with congenital anomalies (CAs) could have an additional LOS risk.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Utilising the population-based Australian and New Zealand Neonatal Network data from 2007 to 2017, bacterial LOS rates were determined in very preterm (VPT, &lt;32 week), moderately preterm (MPT, 32-36 weeks), and term (FT, 37-41 weeks) neonates with or without CA. Stratified by major surgery, the association between CA and bacterial LOS was evaluated.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of 102,808 neonates, 37.7%, 32.8%, and 29.6% were born VPT, MPT, and FT, respectively. Among these, 3.4% VPT, 7.5% MPT, and 16.2% FT neonates had CA. VPT neonates had the highest LOS rate (11.1%), compared to MPT (1.8%) and FT (1.8%) neonates. LOS rates were higher in CA neonates than those without (8.2% versus 5.1% adjusted relative risk [aRR] 1.67, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.45-1.92). Neonates with surgery had a higher LOS rate (14.2%) than neonates without surgery (4.4%, p &lt; 0.001). Among the neonates without surgery, CA neonates had consistently higher LOS rates than those without CA (VPT 14.3% vs. 9.6% [aRR 1.32, 95% CI: 1.11-1.57]; MPT 4% vs. 0.9% [aRR 4.45, 95% CI: 3.23-6.14]; and FT 2% vs. 0.7% [aRR 2.87, 95% CI: 1.97-4.18]). For the neonates with surgery, CAs were not associated with additional LOS risks.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Overall, we reported higher rates of LOS in neonates with CA compared to those without CA. Regardless of gestation, CA was associated with an increased LOS risk among non-surgical neonates. Optimisation of infection prevention strategies for CA neonates should be explored. Future studies are needed to evaluate if the infection risk is caused by CA or associated complications.</p>","PeriodicalId":94152,"journal":{"name":"Neonatology","volume":" ","pages":"1-11"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Neonatology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1159/000540276","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction: Compromised neonatal intensive care unit neonates are at risk of acquiring late-onset infections (late-onset sepsis [LOS]). Neonates born with congenital anomalies (CAs) could have an additional LOS risk.

Methods: Utilising the population-based Australian and New Zealand Neonatal Network data from 2007 to 2017, bacterial LOS rates were determined in very preterm (VPT, <32 week), moderately preterm (MPT, 32-36 weeks), and term (FT, 37-41 weeks) neonates with or without CA. Stratified by major surgery, the association between CA and bacterial LOS was evaluated.

Results: Of 102,808 neonates, 37.7%, 32.8%, and 29.6% were born VPT, MPT, and FT, respectively. Among these, 3.4% VPT, 7.5% MPT, and 16.2% FT neonates had CA. VPT neonates had the highest LOS rate (11.1%), compared to MPT (1.8%) and FT (1.8%) neonates. LOS rates were higher in CA neonates than those without (8.2% versus 5.1% adjusted relative risk [aRR] 1.67, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.45-1.92). Neonates with surgery had a higher LOS rate (14.2%) than neonates without surgery (4.4%, p < 0.001). Among the neonates without surgery, CA neonates had consistently higher LOS rates than those without CA (VPT 14.3% vs. 9.6% [aRR 1.32, 95% CI: 1.11-1.57]; MPT 4% vs. 0.9% [aRR 4.45, 95% CI: 3.23-6.14]; and FT 2% vs. 0.7% [aRR 2.87, 95% CI: 1.97-4.18]). For the neonates with surgery, CAs were not associated with additional LOS risks.

Conclusion: Overall, we reported higher rates of LOS in neonates with CA compared to those without CA. Regardless of gestation, CA was associated with an increased LOS risk among non-surgical neonates. Optimisation of infection prevention strategies for CA neonates should be explored. Future studies are needed to evaluate if the infection risk is caused by CA or associated complications.

澳大利亚和新西兰新生儿重症监护病房收治的新生儿先天畸形与晚发细菌感染之间的关系:基于人口的队列研究》。
导言:新生儿重症监护室的新生儿有感染晚期败血症的风险(晚期败血症 [LOS])。患有先天性畸形(CA)的新生儿可能会增加晚期败血症的风险:利用基于人口的澳大利亚和新西兰新生儿网络 2007 年至 2017 年的数据,确定了有或没有 CA 的极早产儿(VPT,32 周)、中度早产儿(MPT,32-36 周)和足月新生儿(FT,37-41 周)的细菌 LOS 率。根据主要手术进行分层,评估了CA与细菌性LOS之间的关系:在 102,808 名新生儿中,37.7%、32.8% 和 29.6% 分别为 VPT、MPT 和 FT 新生儿。其中,3.4% 的 VPT 新生儿、7.5% 的 MPT 新生儿和 16.2% 的 FT 新生儿患有 CA。与 MPT(1.8%)和 FT(1.8%)新生儿相比,VPT 新生儿的 LOS 率最高(11.1%)。CA 新生儿的 LOS 率高于无 CA 的新生儿(8.2% 对 5.1%,调整相对风险 [aRR] 1.67,95% 置信区间 [CI]:1.45-1.92):1.45-1.92).接受手术的新生儿的 LOS 率(14.2%)高于未接受手术的新生儿(4.4%,P < 0.001)。在没有手术的新生儿中,CA新生儿的LOS率一直高于没有CA的新生儿(VPT 14.3% vs. 9.6% [aRR 1.32, 95% CI: 1.11-1.57];MPT 4% vs. 0.9% [aRR 4.45, 95% CI: 3.23-6.14];FT 2% vs. 0.7% [aRR 2.87, 95% CI: 1.97-4.18])。对于接受手术的新生儿来说,CA与额外的LOS风险无关:总体而言,与无 CA 的新生儿相比,有 CA 的新生儿的 LOS 率更高。无论妊娠时间长短,CA 都与非手术新生儿的 LOS 风险增加有关。应探讨如何优化CA新生儿的感染预防策略。未来的研究需要评估感染风险是由 CA 还是相关并发症引起的。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信