Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research, ISSN - 0973 - 709X

Users Online : 62142

AbstractMaterial and MethodsResultsDiscussionConclusionAcknowledgementReferencesDOI and Others
Article in PDF How to Cite Citation Manager Readers' Comments (0) Audio Visual Article Statistics Link to PUBMED Print this Article Send to a Friend
Advertisers Access Statistics Resources

Dr Mohan Z Mani

"Thank you very much for having published my article in record time.I would like to compliment you and your entire staff for your promptness, courtesy, and willingness to be customer friendly, which is quite unusual.I was given your reference by a colleague in pathology,and was able to directly phone your editorial office for clarifications.I would particularly like to thank the publication managers and the Assistant Editor who were following up my article. I would also like to thank you for adjusting the money I paid initially into payment for my modified article,and refunding the balance.
I wish all success to your journal and look forward to sending you any suitable similar article in future"



Dr Mohan Z Mani,
Professor & Head,
Department of Dermatolgy,
Believers Church Medical College,
Thiruvalla, Kerala
On Sep 2018




Prof. Somashekhar Nimbalkar

"Over the last few years, we have published our research regularly in Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research. Having published in more than 20 high impact journals over the last five years including several high impact ones and reviewing articles for even more journals across my fields of interest, we value our published work in JCDR for their high standards in publishing scientific articles. The ease of submission, the rapid reviews in under a month, the high quality of their reviewers and keen attention to the final process of proofs and publication, ensure that there are no mistakes in the final article. We have been asked clarifications on several occasions and have been happy to provide them and it exemplifies the commitment to quality of the team at JCDR."



Prof. Somashekhar Nimbalkar
Head, Department of Pediatrics, Pramukhswami Medical College, Karamsad
Chairman, Research Group, Charutar Arogya Mandal, Karamsad
National Joint Coordinator - Advanced IAP NNF NRP Program
Ex-Member, Governing Body, National Neonatology Forum, New Delhi
Ex-President - National Neonatology Forum Gujarat State Chapter
Department of Pediatrics, Pramukhswami Medical College, Karamsad, Anand, Gujarat.
On Sep 2018




Dr. Kalyani R

"Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research is at present a well-known Indian originated scientific journal which started with a humble beginning. I have been associated with this journal since many years. I appreciate the Editor, Dr. Hemant Jain, for his constant effort in bringing up this journal to the present status right from the scratch. The journal is multidisciplinary. It encourages in publishing the scientific articles from postgraduates and also the beginners who start their career. At the same time the journal also caters for the high quality articles from specialty and super-specialty researchers. Hence it provides a platform for the scientist and researchers to publish. The other aspect of it is, the readers get the information regarding the most recent developments in science which can be used for teaching, research, treating patients and to some extent take preventive measures against certain diseases. The journal is contributing immensely to the society at national and international level."



Dr Kalyani R
Professor and Head
Department of Pathology
Sri Devaraj Urs Medical College
Sri Devaraj Urs Academy of Higher Education and Research , Kolar, Karnataka
On Sep 2018




Dr. Saumya Navit

"As a peer-reviewed journal, the Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research provides an opportunity to researchers, scientists and budding professionals to explore the developments in the field of medicine and dentistry and their varied specialities, thus extending our view on biological diversities of living species in relation to medicine.
‘Knowledge is treasure of a wise man.’ The free access of this journal provides an immense scope of learning for the both the old and the young in field of medicine and dentistry as well. The multidisciplinary nature of the journal makes it a better platform to absorb all that is being researched and developed. The publication process is systematic and professional. Online submission, publication and peer reviewing makes it a user-friendly journal.
As an experienced dentist and an academician, I proudly recommend this journal to the dental fraternity as a good quality open access platform for rapid communication of their cutting-edge research progress and discovery.
I wish JCDR a great success and I hope that journal will soar higher with the passing time."



Dr Saumya Navit
Professor and Head
Department of Pediatric Dentistry
Saraswati Dental College
Lucknow
On Sep 2018




Dr. Arunava Biswas

"My sincere attachment with JCDR as an author as well as reviewer is a learning experience . Their systematic approach in publication of article in various categories is really praiseworthy.
Their prompt and timely response to review's query and the manner in which they have set the reviewing process helps in extracting the best possible scientific writings for publication.
It's a honour and pride to be a part of the JCDR team. My very best wishes to JCDR and hope it will sparkle up above the sky as a high indexed journal in near future."



Dr. Arunava Biswas
MD, DM (Clinical Pharmacology)
Assistant Professor
Department of Pharmacology
Calcutta National Medical College & Hospital , Kolkata




Dr. C.S. Ramesh Babu
" Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research (JCDR) is a multi-specialty medical and dental journal publishing high quality research articles in almost all branches of medicine. The quality of printing of figures and tables is excellent and comparable to any International journal. An added advantage is nominal publication charges and monthly issue of the journal and more chances of an article being accepted for publication. Moreover being a multi-specialty journal an article concerning a particular specialty has a wider reach of readers of other related specialties also. As an author and reviewer for several years I find this Journal most suitable and highly recommend this Journal."
Best regards,
C.S. Ramesh Babu,
Associate Professor of Anatomy,
Muzaffarnagar Medical College,
Muzaffarnagar.
On Aug 2018




Dr. Arundhathi. S
"Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research (JCDR) is a reputed peer reviewed journal and is constantly involved in publishing high quality research articles related to medicine. Its been a great pleasure to be associated with this esteemed journal as a reviewer and as an author for a couple of years. The editorial board consists of many dedicated and reputed experts as its members and they are doing an appreciable work in guiding budding researchers. JCDR is doing a commendable job in scientific research by promoting excellent quality research & review articles and case reports & series. The reviewers provide appropriate suggestions that improve the quality of articles. I strongly recommend my fraternity to encourage JCDR by contributing their valuable research work in this widely accepted, user friendly journal. I hope my collaboration with JCDR will continue for a long time".



Dr. Arundhathi. S
MBBS, MD (Pathology),
Sanjay Gandhi institute of trauma and orthopedics,
Bengaluru.
On Aug 2018




Dr. Mamta Gupta,
"It gives me great pleasure to be associated with JCDR, since last 2-3 years. Since then I have authored, co-authored and reviewed about 25 articles in JCDR. I thank JCDR for giving me an opportunity to improve my own skills as an author and a reviewer.
It 's a multispecialty journal, publishing high quality articles. It gives a platform to the authors to publish their research work which can be available for everyone across the globe to read. The best thing about JCDR is that the full articles of all medical specialties are available as pdf/html for reading free of cost or without institutional subscription, which is not there for other journals. For those who have problem in writing manuscript or do statistical work, JCDR comes for their rescue.
The journal has a monthly publication and the articles are published quite fast. In time compared to other journals. The on-line first publication is also a great advantage and facility to review one's own articles before going to print. The response to any query and permission if required, is quite fast; this is quite commendable. I have a very good experience about seeking quick permission for quoting a photograph (Fig.) from a JCDR article for my chapter authored in an E book. I never thought it would be so easy. No hassles.
Reviewing articles is no less a pain staking process and requires in depth perception, knowledge about the topic for review. It requires time and concentration, yet I enjoy doing it. The JCDR website especially for the reviewers is quite user friendly. My suggestions for improving the journal is, more strict review process, so that only high quality articles are published. I find a a good number of articles in Obst. Gynae, hence, a new journal for this specialty titled JCDR-OG can be started. May be a bimonthly or quarterly publication to begin with. Only selected articles should find a place in it.
An yearly reward for the best article authored can also incentivize the authors. Though the process of finding the best article will be not be very easy. I do not know how reviewing process can be improved. If an article is being reviewed by two reviewers, then opinion of one can be communicated to the other or the final opinion of the editor can be communicated to the reviewer if requested for. This will help one’s reviewing skills.
My best wishes to Dr. Hemant Jain and all the editorial staff of JCDR for their untiring efforts to bring out this journal. I strongly recommend medical fraternity to publish their valuable research work in this esteemed journal, JCDR".



Dr. Mamta Gupta
Consultant
(Ex HOD Obs &Gynae, Hindu Rao Hospital and associated NDMC Medical College, Delhi)
Aug 2018




Dr. Rajendra Kumar Ghritlaharey

"I wish to thank Dr. Hemant Jain, Editor-in-Chief Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research (JCDR), for asking me to write up few words.
Writing is the representation of language in a textual medium i e; into the words and sentences on paper. Quality medical manuscript writing in particular, demands not only a high-quality research, but also requires accurate and concise communication of findings and conclusions, with adherence to particular journal guidelines. In medical field whether working in teaching, private, or in corporate institution, everyone wants to excel in his / her own field and get recognised by making manuscripts publication.


Authors are the souls of any journal, and deserve much respect. To publish a journal manuscripts are needed from authors. Authors have a great responsibility for producing facts of their work in terms of number and results truthfully and an individual honesty is expected from authors in this regards. Both ways its true "No authors-No manuscripts-No journals" and "No journals–No manuscripts–No authors". Reviewing a manuscript is also a very responsible and important task of any peer-reviewed journal and to be taken seriously. It needs knowledge on the subject, sincerity, honesty and determination. Although the process of reviewing a manuscript is a time consuming task butit is expected to give one's best remarks within the time frame of the journal.
Salient features of the JCDR: It is a biomedical, multidisciplinary (including all medical and dental specialities), e-journal, with wide scope and extensive author support. At the same time, a free text of manuscript is available in HTML and PDF format. There is fast growing authorship and readership with JCDR as this can be judged by the number of articles published in it i e; in Feb 2007 of its first issue, it contained 5 articles only, and now in its recent volume published in April 2011, it contained 67 manuscripts. This e-journal is fulfilling the commitments and objectives sincerely, (as stated by Editor-in-chief in his preface to first edition) i e; to encourage physicians through the internet, especially from the developing countries who witness a spectrum of disease and acquire a wealth of knowledge to publish their experiences to benefit the medical community in patients care. I also feel that many of us have work of substance, newer ideas, adequate clinical materials but poor in medical writing and hesitation to submit the work and need help. JCDR provides authors help in this regards.
Timely publication of journal: Publication of manuscripts and bringing out the issue in time is one of the positive aspects of JCDR and is possible with strong support team in terms of peer reviewers, proof reading, language check, computer operators, etc. This is one of the great reasons for authors to submit their work with JCDR. Another best part of JCDR is "Online first Publications" facilities available for the authors. This facility not only provides the prompt publications of the manuscripts but at the same time also early availability of the manuscripts for the readers.
Indexation and online availability: Indexation transforms the journal in some sense from its local ownership to the worldwide professional community and to the public.JCDR is indexed with Embase & EMbiology, Google Scholar, Index Copernicus, Chemical Abstracts Service, Journal seek Database, Indian Science Abstracts, to name few of them. Manuscriptspublished in JCDR are available on major search engines ie; google, yahoo, msn.
In the era of fast growing newer technologies, and in computer and internet friendly environment the manuscripts preparation, submission, review, revision, etc and all can be done and checked with a click from all corer of the world, at any time. Of course there is always a scope for improvement in every field and none is perfect. To progress, one needs to identify the areas of one's weakness and to strengthen them.
It is well said that "happy beginning is half done" and it fits perfectly with JCDR. It has grown considerably and I feel it has already grown up from its infancy to adolescence, achieving the status of standard online e-journal form Indian continent since its inception in Feb 2007. This had been made possible due to the efforts and the hard work put in it. The way the JCDR is improving with every new volume, with good quality original manuscripts, makes it a quality journal for readers. I must thank and congratulate Dr Hemant Jain, Editor-in-Chief JCDR and his team for their sincere efforts, dedication, and determination for making JCDR a fast growing journal.
Every one of us: authors, reviewers, editors, and publisher are responsible for enhancing the stature of the journal. I wish for a great success for JCDR."



Thanking you
With sincere regards
Dr. Rajendra Kumar Ghritlaharey, M.S., M. Ch., FAIS
Associate Professor,
Department of Paediatric Surgery, Gandhi Medical College & Associated
Kamla Nehru & Hamidia Hospitals Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh 462 001 (India)
E-mail: drrajendrak1@rediffmail.com
On May 11,2011




Dr. Shankar P.R.

"On looking back through my Gmail archives after being requested by the journal to write a short editorial about my experiences of publishing with the Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research (JCDR), I came across an e-mail from Dr. Hemant Jain, Editor, in March 2007, which introduced the new electronic journal. The main features of the journal which were outlined in the e-mail were extensive author support, cash rewards, the peer review process, and other salient features of the journal.
Over a span of over four years, we (I and my colleagues) have published around 25 articles in the journal. In this editorial, I plan to briefly discuss my experiences of publishing with JCDR and the strengths of the journal and to finally address the areas for improvement.
My experiences of publishing with JCDR: Overall, my experiences of publishing withJCDR have been positive. The best point about the journal is that it responds to queries from the author. This may seem to be simple and not too much to ask for, but unfortunately, many journals in the subcontinent and from many developing countries do not respond or they respond with a long delay to the queries from the authors 1. The reasons could be many, including lack of optimal secretarial and other support. Another problem with many journals is the slowness of the review process. Editorial processing and peer review can take anywhere between a year to two years with some journals. Also, some journals do not keep the contributors informed about the progress of the review process. Due to the long review process, the articles can lose their relevance and topicality. A major benefit with JCDR is the timeliness and promptness of its response. In Dr Jain's e-mail which was sent to me in 2007, before the introduction of the Pre-publishing system, he had stated that he had received my submission and that he would get back to me within seven days and he did!
Most of the manuscripts are published within 3 to 4 months of their submission if they are found to be suitable after the review process. JCDR is published bimonthly and the accepted articles were usually published in the next issue. Recently, due to the increased volume of the submissions, the review process has become slower and it ?? Section can take from 4 to 6 months for the articles to be reviewed. The journal has an extensive author support system and it has recently introduced a paid expedited review process. The journal also mentions the average time for processing the manuscript under different submission systems - regular submission and expedited review.
Strengths of the journal: The journal has an online first facility in which the accepted manuscripts may be published on the website before being included in a regular issue of the journal. This cuts down the time between their acceptance and the publication. The journal is indexed in many databases, though not in PubMed. The editorial board should now take steps to index the journal in PubMed. The journal has a system of notifying readers through e-mail when a new issue is released. Also, the articles are available in both the HTML and the PDF formats. I especially like the new and colorful page format of the journal. Also, the access statistics of the articles are available. The prepublication and the manuscript tracking system are also helpful for the authors.
Areas for improvement: In certain cases, I felt that the peer review process of the manuscripts was not up to international standards and that it should be strengthened. Also, the number of manuscripts in an issue is high and it may be difficult for readers to go through all of them. The journal can consider tightening of the peer review process and increasing the quality standards for the acceptance of the manuscripts. I faced occasional problems with the online manuscript submission (Pre-publishing) system, which have to be addressed.
Overall, the publishing process with JCDR has been smooth, quick and relatively hassle free and I can recommend other authors to consider the journal as an outlet for their work."



Dr. P. Ravi Shankar
KIST Medical College, P.O. Box 14142, Kathmandu, Nepal.
E-mail: ravi.dr.shankar@gmail.com
On April 2011
Anuradha

Dear team JCDR, I would like to thank you for the very professional and polite service provided by everyone at JCDR. While i have been in the field of writing and editing for sometime, this has been my first attempt in publishing a scientific paper.Thank you for hand-holding me through the process.


Dr. Anuradha
E-mail: anuradha2nittur@gmail.com
On Jan 2020

Important Notice

Original article / research
Year : 2011 | Month : November | Volume : 5 | Issue : 7 | Page : 1385 - 1388 Full Version

Early Onset of Neonatal Sepsis: Analysis of the Risk Factors and the Bacterial Isolates by Using the BacT Alert System


Published: November 1, 2011 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.7860/JCDR/2011/.1664
Ramesh Bhat Y, Lincy P. Baby

1. Professor, Department of Paediatrics Kasturba Medical College, Manipal-576104 Manipal University Udupi District, Karnataka, India. 2. Department of Paediatrics Kasturba Medical College, Manipal-576104 Manipal University Udupi District, Karnataka, India.

Correspondence Address :
Ramesh Bhat Y.
Professor, Department of Paediatrics
Kasturba Medical College,
Manipal University, Manipal-576104
Udupi District, Karnataka, India.
E-mail: docrameshbhat@yahoo.co.in

Abstract

Objective: To evaluate the risk factors and the bacterial isolates of early onset of neonatal sepsis and to study their resistance patterns.

Methods: Neonates who were suspected of early onset sepsis (EOS) based on the presence of risk factors, and/or clinical features that were consistent with bacterial infections, with the positivity of two or more sepsis screen parameters during the first 72 hours of life were studied prospectively. The demographic data, risk factors, clinical features, haematological screening parameters and CRP were studied. Bacterial isolates from a single blood culture and their resistance patterns were analyzed by using the BacT alert system.

Results: A total of 52 neonates with early onset sepsis were studied. The male: female ratio was 1.36: 1. The mean (SD) birth weight and gestation were 2169 ± 878 g and 35.9± 3.6 weeks respectively, 19 were inborn. The estimated incidence of EOS among the inborn neonates was 11 per 1000 live births. One or more risk factors were present in 34.6 % of the cases. A significantly higher incidence of EOS among the premature (OR, 15.8) and low birth weight (OR, 10.2) neonates was observed. Two or more sepsis screen parameters were positive in 67% cases. The blood culture yielded bacterial growth in 28.8 % cases. The common organisms which were isolated were Klebsiella, followed by Pseudomonas and MRSA. A high resistance to the commonly used antibiotics like ampicillin and gentamicin was observed. The case fatality rate was 19.2 %.

Conclusions: The premature and low birth weight neonates were at an increased risk of developing EOS. Gram negative organisms, especially Klebsiella and Pseudomonas remained as common pathogens. A high resistance of the blood culture isolates to the commonly used antibiotics was observed.

Keywords

Early onset sepsis, Neonates, Blood culture, Antibiotics

Introduction
Early onset bacterial sepsis (EOS) remains a major cause for neonatal morbidity and mortality (1),(2),(3),(4),(5). Apart from the obstetric risk factors, prematurity and low birth weight are associated with increased bacterial infection rates (6),(7). The incidence of the sepsis, the bacterial profile and the resistance pattern vary from a developed country to a developing country and from nursery to nursery. An overall incidence of the culture proven sepsis of 1-8 cases per 1000 live births from the developed countries and 4.8-20.7 per 1000 live births from India has been reported. The common aetiological agents include Group B Streptococcus (GBS) and Escherichia coli (E.coli) following the preventive strategies for GBS in the developed countries (1), (2), (6) and Klebsiella pneumoniae and Staphylococcus in India (5). Another Indian study identified E.coli as the most common causative bacteria (8). Recently, BacT/Alert microbial detection systems are being used for blood cultures (9). Such systems have also reported a better yield and an early detection of microorganisms.

The case fatality rate in early onset neonatal sepsis ranges from 16.7% to 19.4% (2), (4), (8). Early and appropriate antibiotic therapy is likely to improve the outcome. The knowledge of the sensitivity and the resistance pattern of the microorganisms would help in choosing the empirical therapy. We aimed to evaluate the risk factors which were associated with EOS and the bacterial profile by using the BacT alert system and their resistance patterns.

Material and Methods

This prospective study was carried out at a neonatal nursery which was attached to a teaching hospital, between July 2006 and December 2007. The study included neonates who were suspected of having sepsis, based on the presence of risk factors and/or clinical features that were consistent with bacterial infections, with the positivity of two or more sepsis screen parameters during the first 72 hours of life. The entire inborn population was scrutinized for EOS during the study period. The risk factors such as prematurity, low birth weight, maternal fever, chorioamnionitis, foul smelling liquor, prolonged rupture of membranes (PROM) and maternal urinary tract infection (UTI) were collected. We did not study vaginal colonization. Obstetric data was collected from the obstetric case sheets and/or by interviewing the mothers. The presence of meconium stained amniotic fluid (MSAF) and perinatal asphyxia were noted in the neonates. The total leucocyte count, the platelet count, the C-reactive protein (CRP) and the band: neutrophil (B: N) ratio were obtained in all the newborns. A single blood sample was collected by taking sterile precautions (0.5 ml) and inoculated into the culture bottle. The BacT alert microbial detection system (bioMerieux, Inc., Durham, North Carolina, USA) was used for the blood culture.

A leucocyte count (TLC) of <5000/cumm or >20000/cmm (10), an absolute neutrophil count of < 1750/cumm, a B: N ratio of ≥ 0.2 (11), a platelet count of < 150000/cmm, and a CRP value of ≥ 12 mg/Lwere considered as suggestive of sepsis. A chest X-ray was obtained on indication. CSF analysis was carried out whenever meningitis was suspected or when the blood culture grew microorganisms. The clinical features, the risk factors, the blood culture isolates and their sensitivity patterns were documented and analyzed. The data was analyzed by using the SPSS data editor and the proportions were analyzed by using the Fisher’s exact test or the Chi square test.

Results

A total of 52 neonates with early onset sepsis were studied. The male: female ratio was 1.36:1. The mean (SD) birth weight and gestation were 2169 ± 878 g and 35.9 ± 3.6 weeks respectively. The characteristics of the study neonates are shown in (Table/Fig 1). Of the total 52 neonates, 19 were inborn. The estimated incidence of EOS among the inborn neonates was 11 per 1000 live births. Among the inborn neonates with EOS, 73.6 % had low birth weight and 46.2% were preterm.

One or more risk factors were present in 18 (34.6 %) cases (Table/Fig 2). Seven neonates had both MSAF and perinatal asphyxia as the risk factors. There were no cases with maternal fever or foul smelling liquor. Among the inborn, 13 out of 228 preterm neonates and 6 out of 1577 term neonates had EOS. Of 398 low birth weight neonates, 14 and of 1407 normal birth weight neonates, 5 had EOS. The odds ratio for prematurity and low birth weight for early sepsis were 15.8 (5.95-42.09. p<0.05) and 10.2 (3.65-28.55; p<0.05) respectively.

The most common clinical feature which was observed was lethargy (80.7%), followed by respiratory distress (57.6%) and feed intolerance (53.8%). Temperature instability was present in 34.5% of the neonates. CSF analysis was done in 16 cases and 3 had meningitis (5.8%). Among them, the blood culture grew microorganisms in all and CSF grew microorganisms in one.

An abnormal total leucocyte count (TLC) was seen in 36.4% neonates; it was low in 5.7% and high in 30.7% neonates. All the 3(5.7%) cases with a TLC of less than 5000/mm3 also had a low ANC value of < 1750/ mm3. An elevated CRP value was observed in 69 % neonates and the band: neutrophil ratio was ≥ 0.2 in 53%. A low platelet count was seen in 52% neonates. Two or more sepsis screen parameters were positive in 35(67%) cases.

The blood culture yield in the current study was 28.8 % (15/52). The common organisms which were isolated were Klebsiella, followed by Pseudomonas and MRSA. The antibiotic susceptibility pattern is shown in ,(Table/Fig 3),(Table/Fig 4). Klebsiella was sensitive to the extended spectrum penicillins like piperacillin and the carbapenems. Pseudomonas was sensitive to most of the third generation cephalosporins. CONS and Streptococci were sensitive to the first line antibiotics like ampicillin, while MRSA was sensitive to amikacin, ciprofloxacin, linezolid and vancomycin. The case fatality rate in the present study was 19.2 % (10/52). Co morbid conditions were present in 25 cases; 12 had hyaline membrane disease, 2 had meconium aspiration syndrome, 2 had congenital diaphragmatic hernia and 12 had perinatal asphyxia.

Discussion

The incidence of EOS varies widely. Western studies have reported 1-8 EOS cases per 1000 live births (1), (2) Indian studies have reported 4.8 to 20.7 EOS per 1000 live births (3),(4),(5), (8). In the present study, out of 1805 inborn neonates, 19(1.1%) had early onset sepsis with an estimated incidence of 11 per 1000 live births. A slight male preponderance in the present study agreed with the findings of earlier studies (6), (8).

Obstetric risk factors were present in 34.6 % of the cases in the present study. Similar observations were reported in a previous study (8). A much higher obstetric risk factor association of 77.8% was reported by Betty and Sohi (4). Schuchat et al (6) reported an obstetric risk factor-preterm association in 49% GBS and in 79% of other EOS species. PROM, meconium stained amniotic fluid, maternal UTI and perinatal asphyxia were associated with EOS. A significant association of these factors with EOS and a negligible risk of EOS in the absence of these factors have been reported earlier (4). We observed significantly higher incidences of EOS among the premature (OR, 15.8) and low birth weight (OR, 10.2) neonates. In a study which involved 1743 live births, Betty and Sohi reported significantly higher incidences of EOS among the low birth weight and preterm infants (4). In their series of 65 infants with EOS, 83.3% were low birth weight and 80.6% were preterm. Soman et al also observed that 83% of those with sepsis were low birth weight neonates (12). Bizzarro et al (13) reported that 43% of the mothers of the EOS group had preterm labour.

The National Neonatal Perinatal Database (NNPD) reports (5) of 2002-2003 and few other studies (2),(3),(4) identified respiratory distress as the commonest presentation of early onset sepsis. Respiratory distress and hyperbilirubinaemia were the common presenting features in a study which was done by Doud et al (14). We observed that lethargy, respiratory distress and feed intolerance were the common manifestations. Meningitis was observed in 5.8% neonates. A higher rate of 8.3% was reported by Betty and Sohi (4). Two or more sepsis screen parameters were positive in 67% neonates in the present study. Sharma et al (15) and Varsha et al (16) reported two or more tests to be positive in 80% of the neonatal septicaemia cases.

The blood culture yield by using the BacT/alert system in the current study was 28.8 %. This was similar to the 26% which was reported by Ahmed (17) et al. A lower rate of about 20% yield was suggested by Baltimore et al (2), Gladstone et al (18) and Sharma et al (15). d Haens et al, (19) by using the BacT system, also got a yield of 20%. Much higher culture positive rates of 51%, as observed by Karthikeyan and Prem Kumar (20), and of 64%, as observed by Tallur et al (21), were reported from India.

In the west, Group B streptococcus is the microorganism which is most frequently isolated in EOS. Schuchat et al (6) reported GBS (1.4/1000 birth) and E.coli (0.6/1000) as the most common aetiological agents of EOS. Bizzaro et al (13) also reported these two organisms as common for EOS in their review of 75 years of neonatal sepsis. Hyde et al (22) also reported these two as the common organisms. The current study isolated Klebsiella mainly, followed by Pseudomonas and MRSA. This finding agreed with the reports of Sharma et al (15). NNPD 2003 (5) reported Klebsiella pneumoniae and Staphylococcus as the most frequent causative organisms for neonatal sepsis in India. In contrast, Kuruvilla et al (8) reported E.coli as the most common cause (7),(21),(23).

Klebsiella was sensitive to piperacillin and the carbapenems. Pseudomonas was sensitive to ceftazidime. CONS and Streptococci were sensitive to the first line antibiotics like ampicillin, while MRSA was sensitive to amikacin, ciprofloxacin, linezolid and vancomycin. These organisms were resistant to the commonly used antibiotics like ampicillin and gentamicin. Thaver et al (24) reported the resistance of all the Klebsiella species to ampicillin in their study. An increasing ampicillin resistance among E.coli of EOS has been reported by Hide et al (22), especially in prematurely born infants. Ganatra et al (25) discussed a similar growing antibiotic resistance of neonatal pathogens in developing countries in their review on an international perspective on early onset neonatal sepsis.

The case fatality rate in the present study was 19.3 %, which was closer to 19.4%, as reported by Betty et al (4). A lower mortality rate of 10.2 % was reported by Bizzaro et al (13). A higher mortality rate of 37% was reported by Tallur et al (21) from India. Out of 10 deaths, 4 cases had positive blood cultures.

Conclusion

The EOS incidence varied widely. The prematurity and low birth weight neonates were particularly at a higher risk. The obstetric risk factors contributed significantly to the EOS. The culture yield which was obtained by using the BacT system was about 29%. Gram negative organisms, especially Klebsiella and Pseudomonas predominated. Gram positive organisms were responsible for at least a third of the cases. Pseudomonas remained sensitive to ceftazidime. The resistance of pathogens to the commonly used antibiotics remained high.

Acknowledgement

The authors thank Dr. Leslie Lewis, Professor of Paediatrics, Neonatal Division, for his kind help, support, suggestions and encouragement while carrying out this research work.

References

1.
Cordero L, Sananes M, Ayers LW. Bloodstream infections in a neonatal intensive-care unit: 12 years of experience in using an antibiotic control program. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 1999; 20:242-46.
2.
Baltimore RS, Huie SM, Meek JI, Schuchat A, O’Brein KL. Early-onset of neonatal sepsis in the era of group B Streptococcal prevention. Paediatrics 2001; 108:1094-98.
3.
Sankar MJ, Agarwal R, Deorari AK, Paul VK. Sepsis in the newborn. Indian J Paediatr 2008; 75:261-66.
4.
Betty C, Sohi I. Early onset neonatal sepsis. Indian J Paediatr 2005; 72:23-26.
5.
Report of the National Neonatal Perinatal Database (National Neonatology Forum) 2002-2003.
6.
Schuchat A, Zywicki SS, Dinsmoor MJ, Mercer B, Romaguera J, O’Sullivan MJ et al. Risk factors and opportunities for the prevention of early – onset neonatal sepsis: a multicenter case-control study. Paediatrics 2000; 105: 21-26.
7.
Stoll BJ, Gordon T, Korones SB et al. Early onset sepsis in very low birth weight neonates: A report from the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Neonatal Research Network. J Paediatr 1996; 129:72-80.
8.
Kuruvilla KA, Pillai S, Jesudasan M, Jana AK. The bacterial profile of sepsis in a neonatal unit in south India. Indian Paediatr 1998; 35:851-58.
9.
Garcia-Prats JA, Cooper TR, Schneider VF, et al. Rapid detection of microorganisms in the blood cultures of newborn infants by utilizing an automated blood culture system. Paediatrics 2000; 105: 523–527.
10.
Rodwell RL, Leslie AL, Tudehope DI. Early diagnosis of neonatal sepsis by using a hematologic scoring system. J Paediatr 1988; 112:761-67.
11.
Kite. Comparison of five tests which were used in the diagnosis of neonatal bacteremia. Arch Dis Child 1998; 63:639-643.
12.
Soman M, Green B, Daling J. Risk factors for early neonatal sepsis. Am J Epidemiol 1985; 121:712-19.
13.
Bizzarro MJ, Raskind C, Baltimore RS, Gallagher PG. Seventy-five years of neonatal sepsis at Yale: 1928–2003. Paediatrics 2005;116: 595-602.
14.
Daoud AS, Abuekteish F, Obeidat A, el-Nassir Z, al-Rimawi H. The changing face of neonatal septicaemia. Ann Trop Paediatr 1995; 15; 93-96.
15.
Sharma A, Kutty CVK, Sabharwal U, Rathee S, Mohan H. Evaluation of the sepsis screen for the diagnosis of neonatal septicemia. India J Paediatr 1993; 60: 559-63.
16.
Varsha, Rusia U, Sikka M, Faridi MMA, Madan N. Validity of the haematologic parameters in the identification of early and late onset neonatal infections. Indian J Pathol Microbiol 2003; 46:565-68.
17.
Ahmed NU, Chowdhury MA, Hoque M, Darmstadt GL. The clinical and bacteriological profile of neonatal septicemia in a tertiary level paediatric hospital in Bangladesh. Indian Paediatr 2002; 39:1034- 1039.
18.
Gladstone IM, Ehrenkranz RA, Edberg SC, Baltimore RS. A ten-year review of neonatal sepsis and comparison with a previous fifty-year experience. Paediatr Infect Dis J 1990; 9:819–25.
19.
d’Haens EJ, Roell-Schorer EAM, van-Elzakker EPM, de-Beaufort AJ, Sprij AJ. Clinical availability of neonatal blood culture results at 48 hours. Journal of Neonatal-Perinatal Medicine 2009; 2:109-13.
20.
Karthikeyan G, Premkumar K. Neonatal sepsis: Staphylococcus aureus as the predominant pathogen. Indian J Paediatr 2001; 68:715- 717.
21.
Tallur SS, Kasturi AV, Nadgir SD, Krishna BVS. A clinico-bacteriological study of neonatal septicaemia in Hubli. Indian J Paediatr 2000; 67: 169-74.
22.
Hyde TB, Hilger TM, Reingold A, Farley MM, O’Brien KL, Schuchat A. Trends in the incidence and antimicrobial resistance of early-onset sepsis: a population-based surveillance in San Francisco and Atlanta. Paediatrics 2002; 110: 690-95.
23.
Joshi SG, Ghole VS, Niphadkar KB. Neonatal gram-negative bacteremia. Indian J Paediatr 2000; 67:27-32.
24.
Thaver D, Ali SA, Zaidi AK: Antimicrobial resistance among neonatal pathogens in developing countries. Paediatr Infect Dis J 2009; 28: S19-21.
25.
Ganatra HA, Stoll BJ, Zaidi AK: An international perspective on earlyonset neonatal sepsis. Clin Perinatol 2010; 37: 501–523.

DOI and Others

JCDR/2011/1664

JCDR is now Monthly and more widely Indexed .
  • Emerging Sources Citation Index (Web of Science, thomsonreuters)
  • Index Copernicus ICV 2017: 134.54
  • Academic Search Complete Database
  • Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ)
  • Embase
  • EBSCOhost
  • Google Scholar
  • HINARI Access to Research in Health Programme
  • Indian Science Abstracts (ISA)
  • Journal seek Database
  • Google
  • Popline (reproductive health literature)
  • www.omnimedicalsearch.com