Kaitlin Widmer1,2, Sarah Schmidt3,4, Leigh Anne Bakel3,2, Michael Cookson2, Jan Leonard3,4, Amy Tyler3,2. 1. Sections of Hospital Medicine and kaitlin.widmer@childrenscolorado.org. 2. Department of Pediatrics, School of Medicine, University of Colorado, Aurora, Colorado. 3. Sections of Hospital Medicine and. 4. Emergency Medicine, Department of Pediatrics, Children's Hospital Colorado, Aurora, Colorado; and.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Recent evidence suggests that measuring the procalcitonin level may improve identification of low-risk febrile infants who may not need intervention. We describe outcomes after the implementation of a febrile infant clinical pathway recommending measurement of the procalcitonin level for risk stratification. METHODS: In this single-center retrospective pre-post intervention study of febrile infants aged 29 to 60 days, we used interrupted time series analyses to evaluate outcomes of lumbar puncture (LP), antibiotic administration, hospital admission, and emergency department (ED) length of stay (LOS). A multivariable logistic regression was used to evaluate the odds of LP. RESULTS: Data were analyzed between January 2017 and December 2019 and included 740 participants. Procalcitonin use increased post-pathway implementation (PI). The proportion of low-risk infants receiving an LP decreased significantly post-PI (P = .001). In the adjusted interrupted time series analysis, there was no immediate level change (shift) post-PI for LP (0.98 [95% confidence interval (CI): 0.49-1.97]), antibiotics (1.17 [95% CI: 0.56-2.43]), admission (1.07 [95% CI: 0.59-1.96]), or ED LOS (1.08 [95% CI: 0.92-1.28]), and there was no slope change post-PI versus pre-PI for any measure (LP: 1.01 [95% CI: 0.94-1.08]; antibiotics: 1.00 [95% CI: 0.93-1.08]; admission: 1.03 [95% CI: 0.97-1.09]; ED LOS: 1.01 [95% CI: 0.99-1.02]). More patients were considered high risk, and fewer had incomplete laboratory test results post-PI (P < .001). There were no missed serious bacterial infections. A normal procalcitonin level significantly decreased the odds of LP (P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: Clinicians quickly adopted procalcitonin testing. Resource use for low-risk infants decreased; however, there was no change to resource use for the overall population because more infants underwent laboratory evaluation and were classified as high risk post-PI.
OBJECTIVES: Recent evidence suggests that measuring the procalcitonin level may improve identification of low-risk febrile infants who may not need intervention. We describe outcomes after the implementation of a febrile infant clinical pathway recommending measurement of the procalcitonin level for risk stratification. METHODS: In this single-center retrospective pre-post intervention study of febrile infants aged 29 to 60 days, we used interrupted time series analyses to evaluate outcomes of lumbar puncture (LP), antibiotic administration, hospital admission, and emergency department (ED) length of stay (LOS). A multivariable logistic regression was used to evaluate the odds of LP. RESULTS: Data were analyzed between January 2017 and December 2019 and included 740 participants. Procalcitonin use increased post-pathway implementation (PI). The proportion of low-risk infants receiving an LP decreased significantly post-PI (P = .001). In the adjusted interrupted time series analysis, there was no immediate level change (shift) post-PI for LP (0.98 [95% confidence interval (CI): 0.49-1.97]), antibiotics (1.17 [95% CI: 0.56-2.43]), admission (1.07 [95% CI: 0.59-1.96]), or ED LOS (1.08 [95% CI: 0.92-1.28]), and there was no slope change post-PI versus pre-PI for any measure (LP: 1.01 [95% CI: 0.94-1.08]; antibiotics: 1.00 [95% CI: 0.93-1.08]; admission: 1.03 [95% CI: 0.97-1.09]; ED LOS: 1.01 [95% CI: 0.99-1.02]). More patients were considered high risk, and fewer had incomplete laboratory test results post-PI (P < .001). There were no missed serious bacterial infections. A normal procalcitonin level significantly decreased the odds of LP (P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: Clinicians quickly adopted procalcitonin testing. Resource use for low-risk infants decreased; however, there was no change to resource use for the overall population because more infants underwent laboratory evaluation and were classified as high risk post-PI.
Authors: Evridiki K Vouloumanou; Eleni Plessa; Drosos E Karageorgopoulos; Elpis Mantadakis; Matthew E Falagas Journal: Intensive Care Med Date: 2011-03-05 Impact factor: 17.440
Authors: Paul L Aronson; Cary Thurm; Elizabeth R Alpern; Evaline A Alessandrini; Derek J Williams; Samir S Shah; Lise E Nigrovic; Russell J McCulloh; Amanda Schondelmeyer; Joel S Tieder; Mark I Neuman Journal: Pediatrics Date: 2014-10 Impact factor: 7.124
Authors: Carrie L Byington; Carolyn C Reynolds; Kent Korgenski; Xiaoming Sheng; Karen J Valentine; Richard E Nelson; Judy A Daly; Russell J Osguthorpe; Brent James; Lucy Savitz; Andrew T Pavia; Edward B Clark Journal: Pediatrics Date: 2012-06-25 Impact factor: 7.124
Authors: Nathan Kuppermann; Peter S Dayan; Deborah A Levine; Melissa Vitale; Leah Tzimenatos; Michael G Tunik; Mary Saunders; Richard M Ruddy; Genie Roosevelt; Alexander J Rogers; Elizabeth C Powell; Lise E Nigrovic; Jared Muenzer; James G Linakis; Kathleen Grisanti; David M Jaffe; John D Hoyle; Richard Greenberg; Rajender Gattu; Andrea T Cruz; Ellen F Crain; Daniel M Cohen; Anne Brayer; Dominic Borgialli; Bema Bonsu; Lorin Browne; Stephen Blumberg; Jonathan E Bennett; Shireen M Atabaki; Jennifer Anders; Elizabeth R Alpern; Benjamin Miller; T Charles Casper; J Michael Dean; Octavio Ramilo; Prashant Mahajan Journal: JAMA Pediatr Date: 2019-04-01 Impact factor: 16.193
Authors: Vincenzo Maniaci; Andrew Dauber; Scott Weiss; Eric Nylen; Kenneth L Becker; Richard Bachur Journal: Pediatrics Date: 2008-10 Impact factor: 7.124