This Article Full Text (PDF) References Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Citing Articles via Scopus Google Scholar Articles by Kadish, H. A. Articles by Corneli, H. M. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Kadish, H. A. Articles by Corneli, H. M. Social Bookmarking                   What's this?

Applying Outpatient Protocols in Febrile Infants 1-28 Days of Age: Can the Threshold Be Lowered?

Department of Pediatrics, University of Utah School of Medicine, Emergency Department, Primary Children's Medical Center, Salt Lake City, Utah

Brian Loveridget

John Tobeyt

University of Utah School of Medicine, Emergency Department, Primary Children's Medical Center, Salt Lake City, Utah

Robert G. Bolte, MD

Howard M. Corneli, MD

Department of Pediatrics, University of Utah School of Medicine, Emergency Department, Primary Children's Medical Center, Salt Lake City, Utah

The purpose of this study was to determine the applicability of two accepted outpatient management protocols for the febrile infant 1-2 months of age (Boston and Philadelphia protocols) in febrile infants 1-28 days of age. We retrospectively reviewed charts of patients 1-28 days of age with a temperature greater than or equal to 38.0⁰C. Criteria from each of the above-cited management protocols were applied to the patients to determine their applicability in screening for serious bacterial infection (SBI). An SBI was defined as bacterial growth in cultures from blood, urine, cerebrospinal fluid (CSF), stool, or any aspirated fluid. Overall, 372 febrile infants were included in the study. Ages ranged from 1 to 28 days of age. The mean age was 15 days. SBI occurred in 45 patients (12%). The mean age of the patients with an SBI was 13 days. Thirty-two infants (8.6%) had a urinary tract infection; 12 (3.2%), bacteremia; five (1.3%), bacterial meningitis; three (0.8%), cellulitis; one (0.3%), septic arthritis; one (0.3%), bacterial gastroenteritis; and one (0.3%), pneumonia. Ten infants had more than one SBI. Of 372 patients, 231 (62%) met the Boston's laboratory low-risk criteria; eight (3.5%) would have been sent home with an SBI with these criteria. Philadelphia's laboratory low-risk criteria would have been met by 186 patients (50%); six (3.2%) would have been sent home with an SBI with these criteria. The negative predictive value of both the Boston and Philadelphia protocols for excluding an SBI was 97%. We conclude that current management protocols for febrile infants 1-2 months of age when applied to febrile infants 1 to 28 days of age would allow 3% of febrile infants less than 28 days of age to be sent home with an SBI. Current guidelines recommending admitting all febrile infants less than 28 days of age should be followed until the outcome of those 3% of febrile infants with an SBI treated as outpatients can be determined.

Clinical Pediatrics, Vol. 39, No. 2, 81-88 (2000)
DOI: 10.1177/000992280003900202


CiteULike    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    What's this?

This article has been cited by other articles:

				S Schwartz, D Raveh, O Toker, G Segal, N Godovitch, and Y Schlesinger A week-by-week analysis of the low-risk criteria for serious bacterial infection in febrile neonates Arch. Dis. Child., April 1, 2009; 94(4): 287 - 292. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				V. Maniaci, A. Dauber, S. Weiss, E. Nylen, K. L. Becker, and R. Bachur Procalcitonin in Young Febrile Infants for the Detection of Serious Bacterial Infections Pediatrics, October 1, 2008; 122(4): 701 - 710. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				R Marom, W Sakran, J Antonelli, Y Horovitz, Y Zarfin, A Koren, and D Miron Quick identification of febrile neonates with low risk for serious bacterial infection: an observational study Arch. Dis. Child. Fetal Neonatal Ed., January 1, 2007; 92(1): F15 - F18. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				L Brown, T Shaw, and W A Wittlake Does leucocytosis identify bacterial infections in febrile neonates presenting to the emergency department? Emerg. Med. J., April 1, 2005; 22(4): 256 - 259. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				W. V. Raszka Jr. Managing Febrile Infants: Clinical Guidelines Are No Better Than Clinical Judgment But More Expensive AAP Grand Rounds, July 1, 2004; 12(1): 1 - 2. [Full Text] [PDF]

				R. H. Pantell, T. B. Newman, J. Bernzweig, D. A. Bergman, J. I. Takayama, M. Segal, S. A. Finch, and R. C. Wasserman Management and Outcomes of Care of Fever in Early Infancy JAMA, March 10, 2004; 291(10): 1203 - 1212. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				J. C. Brown, M. A. Del Beccaro, and C. R. Clausen A Comparison of Time to Positive Culture and Time to Clinical Identification of Serious Bacterial Infection in Infants Clinical Pediatrics, November 1, 2003; 42(9): 797 - 805. [Abstract] [PDF]

				A Maayan-Metzger, R Mazkereth, and J Kuint Fever in healthy asymptomatic newborns during the first days of life Arch. Dis. Child. Fetal Neonatal Ed., July 1, 2003; 88(4): F312 - F314. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				C. L. Byington, K. K. Rittichier, K. E. Bassett, H. Castillo, T. S. Glasgow, J. Daly, and A. T. Pavia Serious Bacterial Infections in Febrile Infants Younger Than 90 Days of Age: The Importance of Ampicillin-Resistant Pathogens Pediatrics, May 1, 2003; 111(5): 964 - 968. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				A. F. Brayer, G. P. Conners, T. Kaur, and K. M. McConnochie Is Care in Alternative Settings Safe for Infants with Possible Serious Bacterial Infection? Clinical Pediatrics, May 1, 2002; 41(4): 239 - 247. [Abstract] [PDF]

				J. C. Brown, J. L. Burns, and P. Cummings Ampicillin Use in Infant Fever: A Systematic Review Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med, January 1, 2002; 156(1): 27 - 32. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]