• Save
Fever without source
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×
 

Fever without source

on

  • 914 views

 

Statistics

Views

Total Views
914
Views on SlideShare
914
Embed Views
0

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
7
Comments
0

0 Embeds 0

No embeds

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Microsoft PowerPoint

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

Fever without source Fever without source Presentation Transcript

  • Dr. Saptharishi L G Junior Resident
  • LEARNING OBJECTIVES   Approach to a < 36 month old child with acute fever (fever< 5 days)  Concept of ‘Fever Without Source’ and the related practical issues  Clinical practice protocols for Fever Without Source (FWS) in <3 year olds
  • INDEX CASE  B/o S 4 month old male infant Resident of Sec 38, Chandigarh Brought with complaints of  Fever  3 days
  • History Of Presenting illness  FEVER :  Moderate to high grade, intermittent  Documented up to a max of 102 F (by a local doctor)  h/o excessive crying a/w poor feeding – with fever spike  At other times, infant is playful, active and feeding well.  No h/o rigors, No diurnal variation  No h/o rapid breathing/ retractions/ nasal flaring  No h/o neck retractions/ bulging fontanelle/ vomiting  No h/o loose stools/ altered bowel habits
  • Other aspects of History  PAST HISTORY:  Born by FTNVD at PGI; Birth weight – 3.1 Kg  Uneventful antenatal and perinatal period  No h/s/o birth asphyxia/ NNJ FAMILY HISTORY:  First born; No significant family history Exclusively Breastfed since birth Immunized appropriately for age (including Hib)
  • Examination  Anthropometry:  Weight – 6.1 kg (3rd to 15th percentile – WHO charts)  Length – 64 cm (50th centile – WHO charts)  OFC – 42 cm ( 0 to 1 Z score – WHO charts) Vitals:  Temp - 39° C  HR – 122/min  RR – 42/min  BP – 78/50 mm Hg  CFT – 2 s  SpO2 – 98%
  • Examination  No pallor/icterus/ cyanosis/ clubbing/ LAP/ edema General impression  Active, alert but crying  ‘NOT- TOXIC/ SICK ‘ looking Head to toe examination  No obvious focus of sepsis (cellulitis/ abscess/ furuncle)  AF – at level, soft; Perianal region – WNL  Ear – No e/o ASOM, Nose & Throat – mild congestion Systemic examination  CVS/ RS – NAD  P/A – Liver: palpable 2 cm under RCM, soft, non-tender  CNS – Irritable but No e/o FND; Normal examination
  • So what would you like to do for this child??  Child with “just fever”, Sounds familiar? BecauseAlmost all of us have „BURNT‟ our fingers !!!
  • FEVERIdentified FWS / FWF focus Serious Benign Bacterial causes Infections
  • NORMAL TEMPERATURE RANGES Definition of fever Axillary  34.7° to 37.3° C (94.5 to 99.1 F) Oral  35.5° to 37.5° C (95.9 to 99.5 F) Rectal  36.6° to 37.9° C (97.9 to 100.2 F)  Core body temperature > 38° C or 100.4 F Accurate temperature measurement – a must. Fever reported by parent, but now afebrile… Then ?  Fever documented by axillary/ tympanic membrane  Fever documented by rectal thermometry
  • Should doctors be worried as well?  Risk of bacteremia in children with FWS  Up to 10 % (old US data)  7% (BMJ 2010) Complications of Occult Bacteremia  Delayed onset meningitis  Pneumonia  Septic arthritis  Osteomyelitis  Mortality
  • FEVER Can I somehow PICK-UP this group atIdentified presentation?? FWS / FWF focus Serious Benign Bacterial causes Infections Occult Occult UTI Bacteremia Pneumonia
  • Height of fever  No direct correlation with etiology Neonates  Afebrile/hypothermic response despite SBI Older infants & children < 3 years old  EXAGGERATED febrile response  Temp > 40° C  38% risk of SBI High grade fever – unusual in older children/adolescents – SERIOUS Increasing prevalence of pneumococcal bacteremia with increasing temperatures
  • Pattern Of Fever  DOES NOT reliably distinguish between etiologies Response to Anti-pyretic – Bacterial Vs. Viral
  • Observational Assessment  Clinical appearance has good predictive value All children with toxic appearance must be hospitalized, evaluated and started on IV antibiotics
  • What constitutes ‘TOXIC’ look?  Alertness – child looking at the observer, looking around the room, with eyes that are shiny & bright, etc. Normal motor ability – sitting without support, moving arms & legs on table or lap, etc. Playfulness – vocalizing spontaneously, playing with objects, reaching for objects, smiling & crying with noxious stimuli, etc. Irritability- consolability of cry Infant’s smile has a very high negative predictive value for meningitis
  • Interpretation Score – 10  2.7% SBI Yale Observation Score Score 11-15  26% SBI Score > 16  92.3% SBI  1 3 5Quality of cry Strong or No cry Whimper or sob Weak cry / moan/ high pitched cryReaction to Brief cry / content Cries off and on Persistent cryParentsState variation Awakens quickly Difficult to awaken No arousal/ falls asleepColor Pink Acrocyanotic Pale/ cyanotic /mottledHydration Eyes, skin and Mouth slightly dry Mucosa , eyes – mucosa – moist dry/ sunken eyesSocial Response Alert or smiles Alert/ brief smile No smile/ anxious/ dull
  • BUT, Remember…. No combination of clinicalhistory-taking & examination is good-enough 
  • Age-based ClinicalPractice Protocols  < 28 days old 1-3 months old 3 – 36 months old
  • Neonates with FWS   Highest risk group – 12% SBI – UTI/ Occult bacteremia  Strep B, E coli, Listeria  Highest sequelaeSigns of viral illness – does not negate need for full diagnostic evaluationRSV infected neonates – same risk of SBI as RSV negative neonates All neonates with FWS should undergo • Blood c/s, Urinalysis, Urine c/s, CSF study, WBC count • CXR if respiratory symptoms/ Stool testing for WBC count if diarrhea present • IV antibiotics initiated as early as possible • Hospitalization and follow up
  • 1 – 3 month old with FWS  ROCHESTER Criteria – LOW RISK group Appearing well Previously healthy No e/o skin/ soft tissue/ bone/ joint/ ear infections WBC count – 5000 to 15000/mm3 ANC < 1500/mm3 Urine WBC < 10 WBCs/HPF of centrifuged sample Fecal leucocyte count < 5/ HPF in children with diarrhea Boston criteria  included routine CSF also (<10 WBC/HPF) Philadelphia criteria Criteria by Baker et al
  • 1 -3 month old with FWS  Must Dos  WBC counts / Urine dipstick / Urine & Blood c/s CSF  Optional (depending on local protocol) LOW RISK Not LOW RISK F/u in 24 hrs Hospitalize No antibiotics IV antibioticsCollect cultures Collect cultures
  • 3 – 36 month old with FWS  Fever definition stays… But for evaluation purpose,  Temperature > 39° C  CUT-OFF for further work-up  Rationale:  Risk of bacteremia – 0.8 % till 39° C  Jumps to 8% beyond 39° C  No significant further rise beyond 40 or 41° C
  • OCCULT OCCULTOCCULT UTI Pneumonia Bacteremia • IV Antibiotics • Hospitalize • CSF ( if not done already) • Blood c/s • Urine c/s • Urinalysis
  • American Family Physician 2007
  • Rules of the Game  Never do Lumbar Puncture in a child with FWS with suspected bacteremia, if you are not planning to give at least one dose of IV Antibiotic… Never start IV antibiotics to a <3 year-old child with FWS without CSF analysis*…
  • Emerging trends  Effect of Pneumococcal and Hib vaccines  Decrease in bacteremia in 3 – 36 months age group  NEWER Recommendations  Urinalysis more useful than CBC in this group Lee GM et al. Management of febrile children in the age of the conjugate pneumococcal vaccine: a cost-effectiveness analysis. Pediatrics 2001; 108: 835-44 Improving pneumococcal vaccine coverage Bacteremia rates < 0.5% STOP empirical testing and treatment
  • Caveats / Pitfalls  Emphasis on detection of bacterial diseases… Useful for large tertiary care centers… Exclusion of certain sub-groups of children… Artificial chronological age distinctions… Majority assumed to be infectious… Useless unless based on local epidemiological data…
  • Role of newer markers  C-Reactive protein  Lacour et al  sensitivity – 89%, specificity – 75%  Andreola et al  sensitivity – 88%, specificity – 61% Procalcitonin  Lacour et al  sensitivity – 93%, specificity – 78%  Lopez et al  CRP Vs. Pc – similar ROC AUC values
  • ‘TAKE- HOME’ MESSAGES  Significant subset of febrile, 0 to 36 month old children  ‘AT-RISK’ for Serious Bacterial Infections  MORE So in Indian setting/ developing countries  Higher bacteremia/ occult bacterial infections Even ‘ADEQUATE’ history & physical examination falls short…Misses SBI & over-treats benign illnesses Development of an INDIGENOUS data-based protocol – a necessity for every major tertiary care centre
  • ‘TAKE- HOME’ Practice points  Febrile Neonate (0 to 28 days old)  CBC, Blood c/s, urinalysis & urine c/s, CSF analysis, CXR*/Stool*  Empiric IV antibiotic  Hospitalize Febrile Young Infant (1-3 months)  CBC, Blood c/s, Urinalysis and c/s, CXR*/Stool*  Optional CSF# + IV/IM Ceftriaxone  Hospitalize  Follow-up as detailed  OPD Vs. Admission
  • ‘TAKE- HOME’ Practice points  Febrile child 3 – 36 months:  Temp cut-off > 39° C  Evaluate for occult infections (UTI/Bacteremia/Pneumonia)  CBC with differential  in children with fever > 39° C  Indications for Urine c/s  Boys Vs. girls  CXR indications  clinical / WBC > 20,000/mm3  Decision reg antibiotics & hospitalization
  • Primary Reference 
  • Pediatrics 2011 
  • THANK YOU !Would be pleased to respond to queries… If any