新生儿早期败血症强化分类风险评估:一项前瞻性观察研究。

Neonatology Pub Date : 2024-01-01 Epub Date: 2023-10-31 DOI:10.1159/000534091
Hoi Ying Sharon Lau, Xuelian Wang, Ho Tsun Michelia Wong, Ka Hei Catherine Lam, Hugh Simon Lam
{"title":"新生儿早期败血症强化分类风险评估:一项前瞻性观察研究。","authors":"Hoi Ying Sharon Lau, Xuelian Wang, Ho Tsun Michelia Wong, Ka Hei Catherine Lam, Hugh Simon Lam","doi":"10.1159/000534091","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Compared with multivariate risk assessment, traditional category-based risk assessment (CRA) approaches for neonatal early-onset sepsis (EOS) screening are usually straightforward to use, do not require electronic devices, but are associated with higher rates of antibiotic use. This study aims to evaluate the performance of a novel enhanced CRA (eCRA) framework on EOS admissions and antibiotic use and to investigate whether a modified version with adjustments in risk factor weighting can allow its performance to match the EOS calculator while remaining easy to implement.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>This is a prospective, single-center, two-phase observational study. Infants of all gestations delivered in a tertiary hospital in Hong Kong with risk factors or clinical features of EOS were recruited.</p><p><strong>Phase i: </strong>A novel eCRA framework (period 2) was compared with the CDC 2010-based protocol (period 1).</p><p><strong>Phase ii: </strong>A modified eCRA framework was compared theoretically with the EOS calculator. EOS-specific admissions and antibiotic use were measured.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Phase I: 1,025 at-risk infants were recruited during period 2 and compared with 757 infants of period 1. Admissions and antibiotic use decreased from 45.8% to 29.4% and 41.1% to 28.2%, respectively. Antibiotics among those at-risk but well-appearing infants decreased from 25.3% to 16.3% (p &lt; 0.001 for all).</p><p><strong>Phase ii: </strong>antibiotic use was similar (7.3 vs. 6.4%, p = 0.42) between the modified eCRA framework and the EOS calculator.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>An eCRA framework can effectively and safely provide individualized guidance for EOS screening without the need for tools such as the EOS calculator.</p>","PeriodicalId":94152,"journal":{"name":"Neonatology","volume":" ","pages":"56-64"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10836755/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Enhanced Category-Based Risk Assessment for Neonatal Early-Onset Sepsis: A Prospective Observational Study.\",\"authors\":\"Hoi Ying Sharon Lau, Xuelian Wang, Ho Tsun Michelia Wong, Ka Hei Catherine Lam, Hugh Simon Lam\",\"doi\":\"10.1159/000534091\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Compared with multivariate risk assessment, traditional category-based risk assessment (CRA) approaches for neonatal early-onset sepsis (EOS) screening are usually straightforward to use, do not require electronic devices, but are associated with higher rates of antibiotic use. This study aims to evaluate the performance of a novel enhanced CRA (eCRA) framework on EOS admissions and antibiotic use and to investigate whether a modified version with adjustments in risk factor weighting can allow its performance to match the EOS calculator while remaining easy to implement.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>This is a prospective, single-center, two-phase observational study. Infants of all gestations delivered in a tertiary hospital in Hong Kong with risk factors or clinical features of EOS were recruited.</p><p><strong>Phase i: </strong>A novel eCRA framework (period 2) was compared with the CDC 2010-based protocol (period 1).</p><p><strong>Phase ii: </strong>A modified eCRA framework was compared theoretically with the EOS calculator. EOS-specific admissions and antibiotic use were measured.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Phase I: 1,025 at-risk infants were recruited during period 2 and compared with 757 infants of period 1. Admissions and antibiotic use decreased from 45.8% to 29.4% and 41.1% to 28.2%, respectively. Antibiotics among those at-risk but well-appearing infants decreased from 25.3% to 16.3% (p &lt; 0.001 for all).</p><p><strong>Phase ii: </strong>antibiotic use was similar (7.3 vs. 6.4%, p = 0.42) between the modified eCRA framework and the EOS calculator.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>An eCRA framework can effectively and safely provide individualized guidance for EOS screening without the need for tools such as the EOS calculator.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":94152,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Neonatology\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"56-64\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10836755/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Neonatology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1159/000534091\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2023/10/31 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Neonatology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1159/000534091","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/10/31 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

引言:与多变量风险评估相比,用于新生儿早发性败血症(EOS)筛查的传统基于类别的风险评估(CRA)方法通常使用简单,不需要电子设备,但与较高的抗生素使用率有关。本研究旨在评估新型增强CRA(eCRA)框架在EOS入院和抗生素使用方面的性能,并调查调整风险因素权重的修改版本是否可以使其性能与EOS计算器相匹配,同时保持易于实施。方法:这是一项前瞻性、单中心、两阶段的观察性研究。所有在香港三级医院分娩的具有EOS危险因素或临床特征的妊娠婴儿均被招募。第一阶段:将新的eCRA框架(第二阶段)与基于CDC 2010的协议(第一阶段)进行比较。第二阶段:将改进的eCRA架构与EOS计算器进行理论比较。测量EOS特异性入院和抗生素使用情况。结果:第一阶段:在第二阶段招募了1025名高危婴儿,与第一阶段的757名婴儿进行了比较。入院率和抗生素使用率分别从45.8%降至29.4%和41.1%降至28.2%。高危但外观良好的婴儿的抗生素使用率从25.3%下降到16.3%(所有婴儿的p<0.001)。第二阶段:改良eCRA框架和EOS计算器之间的抗生素使用相似(7.3对6.4%,p=0.42)。结论:eCRA框架可以有效、安全地为EOS筛查提供个性化指导,而不需要EOS计算器等工具。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Enhanced Category-Based Risk Assessment for Neonatal Early-Onset Sepsis: A Prospective Observational Study.

Introduction: Compared with multivariate risk assessment, traditional category-based risk assessment (CRA) approaches for neonatal early-onset sepsis (EOS) screening are usually straightforward to use, do not require electronic devices, but are associated with higher rates of antibiotic use. This study aims to evaluate the performance of a novel enhanced CRA (eCRA) framework on EOS admissions and antibiotic use and to investigate whether a modified version with adjustments in risk factor weighting can allow its performance to match the EOS calculator while remaining easy to implement.

Method: This is a prospective, single-center, two-phase observational study. Infants of all gestations delivered in a tertiary hospital in Hong Kong with risk factors or clinical features of EOS were recruited.

Phase i: A novel eCRA framework (period 2) was compared with the CDC 2010-based protocol (period 1).

Phase ii: A modified eCRA framework was compared theoretically with the EOS calculator. EOS-specific admissions and antibiotic use were measured.

Results: Phase I: 1,025 at-risk infants were recruited during period 2 and compared with 757 infants of period 1. Admissions and antibiotic use decreased from 45.8% to 29.4% and 41.1% to 28.2%, respectively. Antibiotics among those at-risk but well-appearing infants decreased from 25.3% to 16.3% (p < 0.001 for all).

Phase ii: antibiotic use was similar (7.3 vs. 6.4%, p = 0.42) between the modified eCRA framework and the EOS calculator.

Conclusions: An eCRA framework can effectively and safely provide individualized guidance for EOS screening without the need for tools such as the EOS calculator.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
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