Luginbuhl Lynn M, Newman Thomas B, Pantell Robert H, Finch Stacia A, Wasserman Richard C
Department of Pediatrics, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.
Pediatrics. 2008 Nov;122(5):947-54. doi: 10.1542/peds.2007-3206.
The goals were to describe the (1) frequency of sepsis evaluation and empiric antibiotic treatment, (2) clinical predictors of management, and (3) serious bacterial illness frequency for febrile infants with clinically diagnosed bronchiolitis seen in office settings.
The Pediatric Research in Office Settings network conducted a prospective cohort study of 3066 febrile infants (<3 months of age with temperatures >or=38 degrees C) in 219 practices in 44 states. We compared the frequency of sepsis evaluation, parenteral antibiotic treatment, and serious bacterial illness in infants with and without clinically diagnosed bronchiolitis. We identified predictors of sepsis evaluation and parenteral antibiotic treatment in infants with bronchiolitis by using logistic regression models.
Practitioners were less likely to perform a complete sepsis evaluation, urine testing, and cerebrospinal fluid culture and to administer parenteral antibiotic treatment for infants with bronchiolitis, compared with those without bronchiolitis. Significant predictors of sepsis evaluation in infants with bronchiolitis included younger age, higher maximal temperature, and respiratory syncytial virus testing. Predictors of parenteral antibiotic use included initial ill appearance, age of <30 days, higher maximal temperature, and general signs of infant distress. Among infants with bronchiolitis (N = 218), none had serious bacterial illness and those with respiratory distress signs were less likely to receive parenteral antibiotic treatment. Diagnoses among 2848 febrile infants without bronchiolitis included bacterial meningitis (n = 14), bacteremia (n = 49), and urinary tract infection (n = 167).
In office settings, serious bacterial illness in young febrile infants with clinically diagnosed bronchiolitis is uncommon. Limited testing for bacterial infections seems to be an appropriate management strategy.
目标是描述(1)脓毒症评估和经验性抗生素治疗的频率,(2)管理的临床预测因素,以及(3)在门诊环境中临床诊断为细支气管炎的发热婴儿的严重细菌感染频率。
门诊儿科研究网络在44个州的219家诊所对3066名发热婴儿(年龄小于3个月,体温≥38摄氏度)进行了一项前瞻性队列研究。我们比较了有和没有临床诊断为细支气管炎的婴儿中脓毒症评估、肠外抗生素治疗和严重细菌感染的频率。我们使用逻辑回归模型确定了细支气管炎婴儿中脓毒症评估和肠外抗生素治疗的预测因素。
与没有细支气管炎的婴儿相比,从业者对患有细支气管炎的婴儿进行全面脓毒症评估、尿液检测和脑脊液培养以及给予肠外抗生素治疗的可能性较小。细支气管炎婴儿中脓毒症评估的重要预测因素包括年龄较小、最高体温较高和呼吸道合胞病毒检测。肠外抗生素使用的预测因素包括最初的病态表现、年龄小于30天、最高体温较高和婴儿窘迫的一般体征。在患有细支气管炎的婴儿(N = 218)中,没有人患有严重细菌感染,有呼吸窘迫体征的婴儿接受肠外抗生素治疗的可能性较小。在2848名没有细支气管炎的发热婴儿中,诊断包括细菌性脑膜炎(n = 14)、菌血症(n = 49)和尿路感染(n = 167)。
在门诊环境中,临床诊断为细支气管炎的年轻发热婴儿中严重细菌感染并不常见。对细菌感染进行有限的检测似乎是一种合适的管理策略。