Data_Sheet_1_Umbilical Cord Procalcitonin to Detect Early-Onset Sepsis in Newborns: A Promising Biomarker.docx
Background: Up to 7% of neonates born in high-income countries receive antibiotics for suspected early-onset sepsis (EOS). Culture-proven neonatal sepsis has a prevalence of 0.2%, suggesting considerable overtreatment. We studied the diagnostic accuracy of umbilical cord blood and infant blood procalcitonin (PCT) in diagnosing EOS to improve antibiotic stewardship.
Methods: Umbilical cord blood PCT was tested in newborns ≥ 32 weeks of gestation. Groups were defined as following: A) culture-proven or probable EOS (n = 25); B) Possible EOS, based on risk factors for which antibiotics were administered for <72 h (n = 49); C) Risk factor(s) for EOS without need for antibiotic treatment (n = 181); D) Healthy controls (n = 74). Additionally, venous or capillary blood PCT and C-reactive protein (CRP) were tested if blood drawing was necessary for standard care.
Results: Between June 2019 and March 2021, 329 newborns were included. Umbilical cord blood PCT was significantly higher in group A than in group C and D. No difference between venous or arterial samples was found. Sensitivity and specificity for cord blood procalcitonin were 83 and 62%, respectively (cut-off 0.1 ng/mL). Antepartum maternal antibiotic administration was associated with decreased PCT levels in both cord blood and infant blood directly postpartum in all groups combined.
Conclusion: Umbilical cord blood PCT levels are increased in newborns ≥32 weeks with a proven or probable EOS and low in newborns with risk factors for infection, but PCT seems not a reliable marker after maternal antibiotic treatment. PCT could be useful to distinguish infected from healthy newborns with or without EOS risk factors.
History
References
- https://doi.org//10.1016/S0140-6736%2817%2931002-4
- https://doi.org//10.3389/fped.2018.00285
- https://doi.org//10.1016/j.pedneo.2015.09.007
- https://doi.org//10.1111/1471-0528.16085
- https://doi.org//10.1111/apa.15488
- https://doi.org//10.12688/f1000research.19954.1
- https://doi.org//10.1542/peds.2013-1689
- https://doi.org//10.1016/S1473-3099%2814%2970919-3
- https://doi.org//10.1111/apa.15391
- https://doi.org//10.1001/jamapediatrics.2019.2825
- https://doi.org//10.1136/archdischild-2019-317165
- https://doi.org//10.1038/s41372-019-0363-4
- https://doi.org//10.1007/s10096-019-03593-0
- https://doi.org//10.1016/S1473-3099%2804%2901146-6
- https://doi.org//10.1093/cid/ciaa876
- https://doi.org//10.1016/S0140-6736%2817%2931444-7
- https://doi.org//10.1007/s10096-011-1187-0
- https://doi.org//10.3389/fped.2020.00127
- https://doi.org//10.1159/000241296
- https://doi.org//10.3389/fped.2021.623043
- https://doi.org//10.1007/s12098-018-2659-3
- https://doi.org//10.1097/00006454-199908000-00003
- https://doi.org//10.1111/jog.14105
- https://doi.org//10.3109/00365513.2014.900696
- https://doi.org//10.3109/14767058.2016.1149563
- https://doi.org//10.1007/s00431-018-3113-2
- https://doi.org//10.1186/s12887-018-1349-7
- https://doi.org//10.3233/NPM-200581
CC BY 4.0