Wu D, Van Oerle R, Martinez A, Piper HG. Risk Factors for Infection in Neonates With Intestinal Failure.
J Pediatr Surg 2024;
59:854-857. [PMID:
38365474 DOI:
10.1016/j.jpedsurg.2024.01.019]
[Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/27/2023] [Accepted: 01/18/2024] [Indexed: 02/18/2024]
Abstract
PURPOSE
Neonates with intestinal failure (IF) are at risk for infection due to central venous access, and intestinal surgery. Infection can cause systemic inflammation and sepsis, potentially affecting growth. The purpose of this study was to identify risk factors for, and the potential impact of infection to help with preventative strategies.
METHODS
A retrospective review of infants with IF, at a single centre from 2018 to 2022 was conducted. Clinical characteristics, intestinal pathology, nutritional intake, and growth were compared among infants with bloodstream infection (BSI), other infection (OI) (urinary, respiratory, or wound), or no infection (NI) within 2 months of diagnosis. Mann-Whitney and Kruskal-Wallis tests were used for comparisons with p-values <0.05 considered significant.
RESULTS
Eighty-six infants were included, with gastroschisis (41%) and necrotizing enterocolitis (26%) the most common diagnoses. Fifty-nine % of infants developed infection (22% BSI and 37% OI). Those with BSI or OI had a lower gestational age and birthweight, and were more likely to have a stoma. All infants with complex gastroschisis developed infection compared to 38% of infants with simple gastroschisis. Median daily weight gain was suboptimal across all groups and did not differ over 6 weeks following infection.
CONCLUSION
Most infants with IF develop infection shortly after diagnosis. Risk factors include prematurity, complex gastroschisis, and the presence of a stoma. Growth was suboptimal but did not differ among infants with or without infection.
TYPE OF STUDY
Retrospective Review.
LEVEL OF EVIDENCE
Level III Retrospective Comparative Study.
Collapse