Evidence Hub

Characteristics of Afebrile Infants ≤60 Days of Age With Invasive Bacterial Infections

Wang ME, Neuman MI, Nigrovic LE, Pruitt CM, Desai S, DePorre AG, Sartori LF, Marble RD et al.

Hospital pediatrics, 2021

440 participants

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: To describe the characteristics and outcomes of afebrile infants ≤60 days old with invasive bacterial infection (IBI).

METHODS: We conducted a secondary analysis of a cross-sectional study of infants ≤60 days old with IBI presenting to the emergency departments (EDs) of 11 children's hospitals from 2011 to 2016. We classified infants as afebrile if there was absence of a temperature ≥38°C at home, at the referring clinic, or in the ED. Bacteremia and bacterial meningitis were defined as pathogenic bacterial growth from a blood and/or cerebrospinal fluid culture.

RESULTS: Of 440 infants with IBI, 78 (18%) were afebrile. Among afebrile infants, 62 (79%) had bacteremia without meningitis and 16 (20%) had bacterial meningitis (10 with concomitant bacteremia). Five infants (6%) died, all with bacteremia. The most common pathogens were Streptococcus agalactiae (35%), Escherichia coli (16%), and Staphylococcus aureus (16%). Sixty infants (77%) had an abnormal triage vital sign (temperature 15 000 cells per μL, absolute band count >1500 cells per μl, or positive urinalysis. Presence of an abnormal vital sign, examination finding, or laboratory test result had a sensitivity of 91% (95% confidence interval 82%-96%) for IBI.

CONCLUSIONS: Most afebrile young infants with an IBI had vital sign, examination, or laboratory abnormalities. Future studies should evaluate the predictive ability of these criteria in afebrile infants undergoing evaluation for IBI.

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a cross-sectional, done in people. Its evidence level is 4 of 5 (Low · observational). Observational designs can show an association but not prove cause. Reported size: 440 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free