| Literature DB >> 36093263 |
Hanan Sakr Sherbiny1, Hanaa Abdel-El Fattah Mostafa2, Laila M Sherief2, Naglaa M Kamal3, Amal Saeed El-Shal4, Mahmoud Mohamed Abdel-El Halm2, Hekmat Yaqoub Khan5, Al Shaymaa Ahmed Ali2.
Abstract
Background: Sepsis remains one of the leading causes of neonatal morbidity and mortality, particularly among premature infants. Blood culture is the 'gold standard' for the diagnosis of neonatal sepsis but is associated with several pitfalls. Aim of the work: We aim to evaluate the validity of measuring serum (S.Hep) and urinary hepcidin (U.Hep) concentrations as diagnostic biomarkers for late-onset sepsis (LOS) in preterm infants. Patients andEntities:
Keywords: late-onset sepsis; preterm infants; serum hepcidin; urinary hepcidin
Year: 2022 PMID: 36093263 PMCID: PMC9459492 DOI: 10.1177/20406223221122527
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Ther Adv Chronic Dis ISSN: 2040-6223 Impact factor: 4.970
Figure 1.Flow chart of the study.
Demographic and clinical characteristics of the studied group.
| Variable | Case | Control | Test | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Gestational age (week), | ||||
| <28 | 15 (21) | 9 (18) | ||
| 28–35 | 34 (47) | 26 (52) | χ2 0.42 | 0.51 |
| >35 | 24 (32) | 15 (30) | ||
| Mean ± SD | 32.7 ± 3.1 | 33.6 ± 3.2 | t 1.5 | 0.12 |
| Age at time of enrollment (days) | ||||
| Mean | 18.6 ± 6.3 | 19.1 ± 5.9 | t 0.44 | 0.65 |
| Median (range) | 18(11–28) | 19(10–28) | ||
| Birth weight (g) | 1690.1 ± 356 | 1761.7 ± 374 | t 1.00 | 0.28 |
| Sex, | ||||
| Male | 42 (57) | 30 (60) | χ2 0.10 | |
| Female | 31 (43) | 20 (40) | 0.074 | |
| Hospitalization at presentation, | ||||
| Yes | 48 (65) | 15 (30) | χ2 14.4 | 0.001 |
| No | 25 (35) | 35 (70) | ||
| Hospital stay (days) | ||||
| Mean ± SD | 24 | 10 | MW 6.7 | 0.0001 |
| Range | 18-37.5 | 7.5-11 | ||
| Respiratory support, | ||||
| Room air | 0 | 37 (74) | ||
| Head box | 10 (14) | 0 | ||
| Low Flow Nasal cannula | 30 (41) | 5 (10) | χ2 0.65 | 0.053 |
| HHHFNC | 9 (12) | 0 | ||
| Nasal CPAP | 11 (15) | 5 (10) | ||
| Mechanical ventilation | 13 (18) | 3 (6) | ||
| Nutritional support, | ||||
| Enteral | 27 (37) | 40 (80) | χ2 21 | 0.0001 |
| Parenteral | 46 (63) | 10 (20) | ||
| Iron therapy | 0 | 0 | ||
| Yes | 32 (43) | 43 (86) | χ2 22 | 0.0001 |
| No | 41 (57) | 7 | ||
| Erythropoietin | 0 | 0 | ||
HHHNC, high humidified heated nasal cannula; CPAP, Continuous Positive Airway Pressure; MW, Mann–Whitney U test; SD, standard deviation; t, Student’s t-test; χ2, chi-square.
Laboratory finding of the studied groups.
| Variable | Case, | Control, | Test | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Total leukocyte count |
|
| ||
| Median (IQR) |
|
| – | – |
| Neutropenia, |
|
| χ2 10 |
|
| Immature/mature > 0.2, |
|
| χ2 56 |
|
| Hematocrit | ||||
| Mean ± SD |
|
|
|
|
| Range |
|
| – | – |
| Platelet’s count | ||||
| Mean ± SD |
|
| ||
| Range |
|
| – | – |
| Acute CRP (mg) | ||||
| Mean ± SD |
|
|
|
|
| Range |
|
| – | – |
| Convalescent CRP (mg) | ||||
| Mean ± SD |
|
|
|
|
| Range |
| |||
| Causative pathogen isolated | ||||
| Gram-negative, |
|
|
| |
| Mean S.Hepcidin ± SD |
| |||
| Gram-positive, |
| |||
| Mean S.Hepcidin ± SD |
| |||
| Acute serum hepcidin (ng/ml) | ||||
| Mean ± SD |
|
|
|
|
| Range |
|
| – | – |
| Convalescent serum hepcidin (ng/ml) | ||||
| Mean ± SD |
|
|
| |
| Range |
| |||
| Acute urinary hepcidin (ng/ml) | ||||
| Mean ± SD |
|
|
|
|
| Acute urinary hepcidin (ng/mg) | ||||
| Mean ± SD |
|
|
|
|
| Range |
|
| – | – |
| Convalescent urinary hepcidin (ng/mg) | ||||
| Mean ± SD |
| |||
| Range |
|
|
| |
CRP, C-reactive protein; IQR, interquartile range; MW, Mann–Whitney U test; SD, standard deviation; t, Student’s t-test; t * paired, t test, between acute and convalescent sample of the same variable; χ2, chi-square.
Figure 2.Comparison of serum hepcidin (ng/ml) between septic cases (73) and controls (50).
Figure 3.Comparison of urine hepcidin (ng/mg) between septic cases (73) and controls (50).
Figure 4.Scatter diagram showing significant direct correlation between acute serum (ng/ml) and urine hepcidin (ng/mg) among septic cases (73) (r = 0.4 and p = 0.01).
Figure 5.Scatter diagram showing significant direct correlation between convalescent serum (ng/ml) and urine hepcidin (ng/mg) after 1 week of treatment of septic cases (73) (r = 0.35 and p = 0.023).
Discriminating value of serum and urinary hepcidin.
| Parameter | Serum hepcidin | Urinary hepcidin |
|---|---|---|
| AUC | 0.935 | 0.878 |
| Standard Error | 0.028 | 0.040 |
| Significance ( | <0.0001 | <0.0001 |
| 95% confidence interval (CI) | 0.879–0.991 | 0.80–0.956 |
| Parameter | Serum hepcidin | Urinary hepcidin |
| Sensitivity | 88% (64/73) | 85% (62/73) |
| Specificity | 94% (47/50) | 90% (45/50) |
| Positive predictive | 95% (64/67) | 92.5% (62/67) |
| Negative predictive | 84% (47/56) | 81% (45/56) |
| Accuracy | 90.2% (64 + 47/123) | 84.5% (62 + 42/123) |
AUC, area under the curve.
Figure 6.Receiver operating characteristic curve (ROC) for serum hepcidin.
Figure 7.Receiver operating characteristic curve (ROC) for urinary hepcidin.
Logistic regression analysis for predictors of neonatal sepsis.
| Independent variables |
| Beta | Wald | 95% CI | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lower | Upper | |||||
| Birth weight | 0.014 | 0.065 | 1.637 | 0.107 | −0.005 | 0.052 |
| Gestational age | 0.000 | −0.055 | −1.338 | 0.186 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Urinary hepcidin | 0.000 | 0.179 | 2.625 | 0.011 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Sex | 0.147 | 0.931 | 0.025 | 0.874 | 0.187 | 7.185 |
| Serum hepcidin | 0.000 | 0.400 | 7.006 | <0.0001 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| CRP | 0.001 | 0.316 | 4.998 | <0.0001 | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Constant | −41.589 | 13.044 | 10.166 | 0.001 | ||
CI, confidence interval; CRP, C reactive protein; SE, standard error.