MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2103744620 · doi:10.1542/peds.2004-0421

Treatment of Urinary Tract Infections Among Febrile Young Children With Daily Intravenous Antibiotic Therapy at a Day Treatment Center

2004· article· en· W2103744620 sur OpenAlexaff
Marie Gauthier, Isabelle Chevalier, Anca Sterescu, Sylvie Bergeron, S. Brunet, Danielle Taddeo

Notice bibliographique

RevuePEDIATRICS · 2004
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineMedicine
ThématiquePediatric Urology and Nephrology Studies
Établissements canadiensUniversité de MontréalCentre Hospitalier Universitaire Sainte-Justine
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésMedicineAntibioticsUrinary systemAmbulatoryGentamicinDosingPediatricsAmoxicillinProspective cohort studyIntravenous therapyInternal medicine

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: Urinary tract infections (UTIs) are common among infants and toddlers. Children can be treated effectively with short courses (2-4 days) of intravenous (IV) therapy followed by oral therapy. If IV therapy is chosen, use of once-daily dosing may allow outpatient management instead of hospital admission. However, no description of ambulatory treatment with IV antibiotics of UTI among febrile children has been reported to date. We aimed to describe the feasibility and complications of outpatient management with IV antibiotics of UTI among febrile children, at the day treatment center (DTC) of a tertiary-care pediatric hospital. METHODS: Between April 1, 2002, and March 31, 2003, a prospective cohort of patients 3 months to 5 years of age who were examined in the emergency department (ED) and diagnosed as having presumed febrile UTI were treated according to a clinical protocol. Patients were treated at the DTC unless they met exclusion criteria, in which case they were hospitalized. The DTC was open 7 days per week, including holidays, from 8:30 am to 4:30 pm. At the DTC, patients were initially treated with a daily dose of IV gentamicin, until the child had been afebrile for at least 24 hours, and with oral amoxicillin, until preliminary urine culture results were available. Children allergic to penicillin received gentamicin only. IV antibiotics were administered through peripheral IV access; the IV catheter's patency was maintained with injection of 50 U of heparin once daily throughout the treatment period. Parental satisfaction with the DTC experience was assessed with an anonymous, self-administered questionnaire. RESULTS: Two hundred ninety-one episodes of presumed febrile UTI were diagnosed in the ED, of which 212 (72.9%) were sent to the DTC. There were 71 hospital admissions (24.4%); in 9 of these instances, the child was admitted because parents refused or were unable to comply with DTC treatment. Adherence to the treatment protocol in the ED was excellent; in 92.1% of presumed febrile UTI episodes (268 of 291 episodes), the patient was referred to the appropriate setting for treatment. In 8 instances, patients who met an exclusion criterion were sent to the DTC. They should have been hospitalized, according to the protocol. At the DTC, a final diagnosis of UTI was made in 178 of the 212 episodes (84%). Patients treated at the DTC, with a final diagnosis of UTI, had a median age of 12.0 months (range: 3-68 months), and their mean initial temperature was 39.2 degrees C (SD: 1.1 degrees C). Patients were afebrile by 24 hours in 52% of UTI episodes and by 48 hours in 82%. Minor problems with IV access occurred in 9.0% of cases. The duration of IV antibiotic therapy at the DTC was 1.9 days (SD: 0.9 day). The mean number of visits to the DTC, including appointments for renal ultrasound and voiding cystourethrography evaluations, was 3.5 (SD: 0.9). Parents were present at all scheduled visits in 98.9% of cases. Four patients needed to be hospitalized from the DTC, but in only 1 case was hospital admission related to UTI treatment. Four patients with UTI treated in the DTC had positive blood cultures, 2 with Escherichia coli (both successfully treated at the DTC) and 2 with contaminants. For 4 children treated at the DTC, UTI was caused by gentamicin-resistant E coli. One patient became afebrile within 24 hours after treatment initiation with IV gentamicin; he was then treated with oral cefixime. A second patient was treated with IV ceftriaxone, administered at the DTC once culture results were available, and remained febrile for <72 hours. The last 2 patients were hospitalized; one, who was also allergic to cephalosporins, had been febrile for 72 hours at the time of hospitalization (once hospitalized, he was treated with IV amikacin), and the other was admitted to the hospital for an unrelated problem, namely, scalp cellulitis. None of these 4 patients was initially bacteremic or became bacteremic during the treatment period. Repeat urine culture was performed within 14 days after treatment initiation in 146 instances, and results were negative in all cases. At telephone follow-up assessments 14 days after discharge, no patient had been rehospitalized because of UTI. Successful treatment at the DTC (defined as attendance at all visits, normalization of temperature within 96 hours, negative control urine cultures, if performed, and absence of hospitalization from the DTC) was observed in 96.6% of the 178 UTI episodes. Overall adherence of physicians to the protocol at the DTC was 87.1% (95% confidence interval: 82.2-92.0%). One hundred seventy-two satisfaction questionnaires were returned and revealed good, very good, or excellent parental satisfaction in 98.8% of cases. CONCLUSIONS: Our data show that ambulatory treatment with IV antibiotics, at a DTC, may be used for at least three-fourths of UTIs among febrile children 3 months to 5 years of age. It is safe and feasible and appears very satisfactory to parents. Although ambulatory treatment with IV antibiotics is more invasive than oral therapy during the initiation of UTI treatment, it ensures almost full compliance, allows close medical supervision, and facilitates investigations related to the UTI. It is an interesting alternative to hospitalization.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,000
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Observationnel · Signal consensuel: Observationnel
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,025
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,847

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0010,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,000
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,000
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0000,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,011
Tête enseignante GPT0,241
Écart entre enseignants0,229 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeObservationnel
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations63
Publié2004
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revuePEDIATRICSMême sujetPediatric Urology and Nephrology StudiesTravaux en français237 207