In Brief | Serious Bacterial Infections in Young Febrile Infants With Positive Urinalysis Results
Type of article: In Brief
MedED Catalogue Reference: MPIB002
Sources: American Academy of Pediatrics
Published on MedED: 9 June 2023
Urinary tract infections in very young infants are thought to have a high association with bacterial meningitis. For this reason, routine lumbar punctures are often performed on these infants.
According to the researchers of this paper, Mahajan et al, the benefits of such a common intervention were unknown. They set out to determine whether conducting a lumbar puncture in febrile infants ( 29-60 days old) who presented with a positive urinalysis was indicated to assess the presence of bacterial meningitis.
Their study reviewed data from 7180 noncritical, febrile infants ( temperature of ≥38°) who presented at a network of emergency departments, whose blood culture and urinary analysis were available for review. Their findings were as follows:
- One thousand ninety (15.2%) of the total sample of infants had positive urinary analysis results. The risk of bacteremia was higher in these infants than in those with a negative urinary analysis result.
- There was no difference in the prevalence of bacterial meningitis in either group of infants aged less than 28 days.
- In infants aged between 29 and 60 days, no cases of bacterial meningitis were recorded in patients with a positive UA result.
- In contrast, nine infants in the same age group with a negative UA result developed bacterial meningitis.
- In infants 60 days or older, there were no cases of bacteremia and bacterial meningitis.
The researchers concluded there was no clear evidence to support the assumption that non-critical febrile infants with positive UA results were at higher risk of bacteremia or bacterial meningitis. This information should guide clinical decision-making regarding administering routine lumbar punctures in such cases.
Disclaimer
This article is compiled from a variety of resources researched and compiled by the contributor. It is in no way presented as an original work. Every effort has been made to correctly attribute quotes and content. Where possible all information has been independently verified. The Medical Education Network bears no responsibility for any inaccuracies which may occur from the use of third-party sources. If you have any queries regarding this article contact us
Fact-checking Policy
The Medical Education Network makes every effort to review and fact-check the articles used as source material in our summaries and original material. We have strict guidelines in relation to the publications we use as our source data, favouring peer-reviewed research wherever possible. Every effort is made to ensure that the information contained here is an accurate reflection of the original material. Should you find inaccuracies, out of date content or have any additional issues with our articles, please make use of the contact us form to notify us.
