Pertussis infection in critically ill infants: meta-analysis and validation of a mortality score

IF 9.3 1区 医学 Q1 CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE Critical Care Pub Date : 2025-02-10 DOI:10.1186/s13054-025-05300-2
Vladimir L. Cousin, Caroline Caula, Jason Vignot, Raphael Joye, Matthieu Blanc, Clémence Marais, Pierre Tissières
{"title":"Pertussis infection in critically ill infants: meta-analysis and validation of a mortality score","authors":"Vladimir L. Cousin, Caroline Caula, Jason Vignot, Raphael Joye, Matthieu Blanc, Clémence Marais, Pierre Tissières","doi":"10.1186/s13054-025-05300-2","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Despite widespread vaccination programs, pertussis continues circulating within populations and remains a life-threatening infection in infants. While several mortality risk factors have been described, a comprehensive synthesis is lacking. We conducted a meta-analysis of studies investigating mortality risk factors in Pertussis infections and validated those factors in a large cohort. Observational studies published in English were systematically searched in PubMed, EMBASE, and LiSSa databases from 01/2000 to 06/2024. The search yielded 816 unique citations. The primary outcome was mortality before discharge from the Pediatric Intensive Care Unit (PICU). Two independent reviewers assessed the risk of bias and extracted data. A REML-random effect model was used to calculate pooled prevalence and conduct the analysis. The identified risk factors were subsequently evaluated in a monocentric cohort of patients admitted to a tertiary hospital’s PICU for severe pertussis between January 1996 and December 2020. Data analysis was conducted between June and August 2024. Seventeen studies, including 2,725 patients, met the inclusion criteria. The pooled prevalence of mechanical ventilation, continuous renal replacement therapy, and Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation support were 55% (95% CI: 40–70; I2 = 98), 15% (95% CI: 3–27; I2 = 95), and 8% (95% CI: 3–12; I2 = 93), respectively. The pooled mortality incidence was 19% (95% CI:12–26; I2 = 96). Identified mortality risk factors included elevated heart rate, presence of pulmonary hypertension, presence of seizures, and elevated white blood cell (WBC) count. Validation in an 83-patient cohort (median age: 45 days, IQR: 30–55) revealed a mortality rate of 12%. Risk factors identified in the meta-analysis were significantly associated with non-survival in the cohort. A mortality prediction score was developed incorporating age < 30 days, heart rate > 200/min, and WBC > 30 G/l, achieving an area under the curve of 0.92 (95% CI: 0.86–0.99). This meta-analysis identified a simple yet effective score to assess the severity of pertussis infection in infants admitted to PICU. Accurate risk stratification may enable timely treatment of critically ill patients, potentially improving outcomes. Trial registration: The study protocol was registered on PROSPERO: CRD42024582057. ","PeriodicalId":10811,"journal":{"name":"Critical Care","volume":"9 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":9.3000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Critical Care","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s13054-025-05300-2","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Despite widespread vaccination programs, pertussis continues circulating within populations and remains a life-threatening infection in infants. While several mortality risk factors have been described, a comprehensive synthesis is lacking. We conducted a meta-analysis of studies investigating mortality risk factors in Pertussis infections and validated those factors in a large cohort. Observational studies published in English were systematically searched in PubMed, EMBASE, and LiSSa databases from 01/2000 to 06/2024. The search yielded 816 unique citations. The primary outcome was mortality before discharge from the Pediatric Intensive Care Unit (PICU). Two independent reviewers assessed the risk of bias and extracted data. A REML-random effect model was used to calculate pooled prevalence and conduct the analysis. The identified risk factors were subsequently evaluated in a monocentric cohort of patients admitted to a tertiary hospital’s PICU for severe pertussis between January 1996 and December 2020. Data analysis was conducted between June and August 2024. Seventeen studies, including 2,725 patients, met the inclusion criteria. The pooled prevalence of mechanical ventilation, continuous renal replacement therapy, and Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation support were 55% (95% CI: 40–70; I2 = 98), 15% (95% CI: 3–27; I2 = 95), and 8% (95% CI: 3–12; I2 = 93), respectively. The pooled mortality incidence was 19% (95% CI:12–26; I2 = 96). Identified mortality risk factors included elevated heart rate, presence of pulmonary hypertension, presence of seizures, and elevated white blood cell (WBC) count. Validation in an 83-patient cohort (median age: 45 days, IQR: 30–55) revealed a mortality rate of 12%. Risk factors identified in the meta-analysis were significantly associated with non-survival in the cohort. A mortality prediction score was developed incorporating age < 30 days, heart rate > 200/min, and WBC > 30 G/l, achieving an area under the curve of 0.92 (95% CI: 0.86–0.99). This meta-analysis identified a simple yet effective score to assess the severity of pertussis infection in infants admitted to PICU. Accurate risk stratification may enable timely treatment of critically ill patients, potentially improving outcomes. Trial registration: The study protocol was registered on PROSPERO: CRD42024582057.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
危重婴儿百日咳感染:死亡率评分的meta分析和验证
尽管有广泛的疫苗接种计划,百日咳仍然在人群中传播,并且仍然是危及婴儿生命的感染。虽然已经描述了几种死亡风险因素,但缺乏全面的综合。我们对调查百日咳感染死亡危险因素的研究进行了荟萃分析,并在一个大队列中验证了这些因素。从2000年1月1日至2024年6月,系统地检索PubMed、EMBASE和LiSSa数据库中发表的英文观察性研究。搜索得到了816条独特的引用。主要终点是儿童重症监护病房(PICU)出院前的死亡率。两名独立审稿人评估了偏倚风险并提取了数据。采用reml随机效应模型计算合并患病率并进行分析。随后,在1996年1月至2020年12月期间,在一家三级医院重症百日咳PICU收治的单中心队列患者中,对确定的危险因素进行了评估。数据分析于2024年6月至8月进行。17项研究,包括2725名患者,符合纳入标准。机械通气、持续肾替代治疗和体外膜氧合支持的总患病率为55% (95% CI: 40-70;I2 = 98), 15% (95% ci: 3-27;I2 = 95), 8% (95% CI: 3-12;I2 = 93)。合并死亡率为19% (95% CI: 12-26;i2 = 96)。确定的死亡危险因素包括心率升高、肺动脉高压、癫痫发作和白细胞(WBC)计数升高。在83例患者队列(中位年龄:45天,IQR: 30-55)的验证显示死亡率为12%。荟萃分析中确定的危险因素与队列中的非生存率显著相关。建立了死亡率预测评分,其中年龄为200/min, WBC为30 G/l,曲线下面积为0.92 (95% CI: 0.86-0.99)。本荟萃分析确定了一个简单而有效的评分来评估PICU收治的婴儿百日咳感染的严重程度。准确的风险分层可能使危重患者得到及时治疗,从而有可能改善预后。试验注册:研究方案在PROSPERO上注册:CRD42024582057。
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 去求助
来源期刊
Critical Care
Critical Care 医学-危重病医学
CiteScore
20.60
自引率
3.30%
发文量
348
审稿时长
1.5 months
期刊介绍: Critical Care is an esteemed international medical journal that undergoes a rigorous peer-review process to maintain its high quality standards. Its primary objective is to enhance the healthcare services offered to critically ill patients. To achieve this, the journal focuses on gathering, exchanging, disseminating, and endorsing evidence-based information that is highly relevant to intensivists. By doing so, Critical Care seeks to provide a thorough and inclusive examination of the intensive care field.
期刊最新文献
Differential carbon dioxide in awake peripheral veno-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation: a neglected clinical challenge. Attenuated hemodynamic response to adjunct vasopressin in obese septic shock patients: a physiological or dose-dependent effect? In-hospital testing of NIVPredict - an AI tool for early prediction of non-invasive ventilation outcome in acute respiratory failure. Centralization of post-resuscitation care after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest at cardiac arrest centres: a Danish nationwide follow-up study. Optimal time window for extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation in patients with in-hospital cardiac arrest.
×
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
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 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 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1