Role of Procalcitonin and C-Reactive Protein in the Early Diagnosis of Neonatal Sepsis

Sumedha Yadav, M. Sharif, A. Saxena, S. Kolhe, D. Dhole
{"title":"Role of Procalcitonin and C-Reactive Protein in the Early Diagnosis of Neonatal Sepsis","authors":"Sumedha Yadav, M. Sharif, A. Saxena, S. Kolhe, D. Dhole","doi":"10.7860/ijnmr/2021/48641.2295","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Introduction: Neonatal Sepsis (NS) is responsible for 30-50% of total neonatal deaths in developing countries. Blood culture is gold standard diagnostic test but has a low yield and is the time consuming. C-Reactive Protein (CRP) and Procalcitonin (PCT) are commonly used for diagnosis of sepsis. Aim: To study the role of CRP and PCT in the screening of NS and to compare PCT and CRP in relation to sensitivity, specificity and accuracy. Materials and Methods: A cross-sectional study was conducted inatertiarycareNeonatalIntensiveCareUnit(NICU)fromFebruary 2018 and November 2019. Neonates with signs and symptoms of sepsis or born to mothers with risk factors for sepsis were included. Those who received antibiotic before admission or had co-morbidities such as meconium aspiration, birth asphyxia, etc., were excluded. Investigations for sepsis including Complete Blood Count (CBC), CRP, PCT and Blood Culture were done. They were classified into three groups as group 1 clinical sepsis, group 2 suspected sepsis and group 3 confirmed sepsis. The statistical test used was Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) test and tests for sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value were also used. Results: The sensitivity, specificity, PPV, and NPV of CRP and PCT versus culture report were evaluated. The sensitivity was 61.90% and 90.47%, specificity was 72.45% and 82.75%, PPV was 61.90% and 79.16% and NPV was 72.45% and 92.30% for CRP and PCT, respectively. The accuracy of the test was 68.00% and 86.00% for CRP and PCT, respectively. Conclusion: PCT is a better septic marker than CRP in relation to sensitivity, specificity and accuracy and correlates positively with blood culture.","PeriodicalId":31116,"journal":{"name":"Indian Journal of Neonatal Medicine and Research","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Indian Journal of Neonatal Medicine and Research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.7860/ijnmr/2021/48641.2295","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

Abstract

Introduction: Neonatal Sepsis (NS) is responsible for 30-50% of total neonatal deaths in developing countries. Blood culture is gold standard diagnostic test but has a low yield and is the time consuming. C-Reactive Protein (CRP) and Procalcitonin (PCT) are commonly used for diagnosis of sepsis. Aim: To study the role of CRP and PCT in the screening of NS and to compare PCT and CRP in relation to sensitivity, specificity and accuracy. Materials and Methods: A cross-sectional study was conducted inatertiarycareNeonatalIntensiveCareUnit(NICU)fromFebruary 2018 and November 2019. Neonates with signs and symptoms of sepsis or born to mothers with risk factors for sepsis were included. Those who received antibiotic before admission or had co-morbidities such as meconium aspiration, birth asphyxia, etc., were excluded. Investigations for sepsis including Complete Blood Count (CBC), CRP, PCT and Blood Culture were done. They were classified into three groups as group 1 clinical sepsis, group 2 suspected sepsis and group 3 confirmed sepsis. The statistical test used was Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) test and tests for sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value were also used. Results: The sensitivity, specificity, PPV, and NPV of CRP and PCT versus culture report were evaluated. The sensitivity was 61.90% and 90.47%, specificity was 72.45% and 82.75%, PPV was 61.90% and 79.16% and NPV was 72.45% and 92.30% for CRP and PCT, respectively. The accuracy of the test was 68.00% and 86.00% for CRP and PCT, respectively. Conclusion: PCT is a better septic marker than CRP in relation to sensitivity, specificity and accuracy and correlates positively with blood culture.
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
降钙素原和c反应蛋白在新生儿败血症早期诊断中的作用
在发展中国家,新生儿败血症(NS)占新生儿死亡总数的30-50%。血培养是诊断的金标准,但产率低,耗时长。c反应蛋白(CRP)和降钙素原(PCT)通常用于败血症的诊断。目的:探讨CRP与PCT在NS筛查中的作用,比较PCT与CRP在敏感性、特异性和准确性方面的差异。材料与方法:于2018年2月至2019年11月在新生儿重症监护病房(NICU)进行横断面研究。包括有脓毒症症状和体征的新生儿或有脓毒症危险因素的母亲所生的新生儿。排除入院前曾使用抗生素或合并胎粪误吸、出生窒息等并发症者。脓毒症的检查包括全血细胞计数(CBC)、CRP、PCT和血培养。将患者分为临床脓毒症1组、疑似脓毒症2组、确诊脓毒症3组。统计学检验采用方差分析(ANOVA)检验,敏感性检验、特异性检验、阳性预测值检验、阴性预测值检验。结果:评价CRP和PCT与培养报告的敏感性、特异性、PPV和NPV。CRP和PCT的敏感性分别为61.90%和90.47%,特异性分别为72.45%和82.75%,PPV分别为61.90%和79.16%,NPV分别为72.45%和92.30%。CRP和PCT的检测准确率分别为68.00%和86.00%。结论:PCT是一种优于CRP的脓毒症标志物,其敏感性、特异性和准确性与血培养呈正相关。
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
19
审稿时长
12 weeks
期刊最新文献
Transcranial Ultrasonography Doppler in Detecting Clinical Outcome of Term Neonates with Perinatal Asphyxia: A Longitudinal Study Effect of Hypoxic Ischaemic Encephalopathy on Coagulation Profile in Neonates in a Tertiary Care Center, Agra- A Prospective Clinical Study Mid Upper Arm Circumference as the Best Surrogate Marker for Identification of Low Birth Weight in Newborns within the First 24 Hours of Life- A Cross-sectional Study A Retrospective Cross-sectional Study of Paediatric Dermatoses during the COVID-19 Pandemic in a Tertiary Care Hospital in Bengaluru, Karnataka, India Clinico-epidemiological Characteristics and Short-term Outcomes of Neonates Born to COVID-19 Positive Mothers at a Tertiary Care Hospital in North Karnataka- A Retrospective Study
×
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:481959085
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