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

Users Online : 41393

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 Bhanu K Bhakhri

"The Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research (JCDR) has been in operation since almost a decade. It has contributed a huge number of peer reviewed articles, across a spectrum of medical disciplines, to the medical literature.
Its wide based indexing and open access publications attracts many authors as well as readers
For authors, the manuscripts can be uploaded online through an easily navigable portal, on other hand, reviewers appreciate the systematic handling of all manuscripts. The way JCDR has emerged as an effective medium for publishing wide array of observations in Indian context, I wish the editorial team success in their endeavour"



Dr Bhanu K Bhakhri
Faculty, Pediatric Medicine
Super Speciality Paediatric Hospital and Post Graduate Teaching Institute, Noida
On Sep 2018




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 Dematolgy,
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

Important Notice

Original article / research
Year : 2012 | Month : May | Volume : 6 | Issue : 4 | Page : 627 - 631

Early Diagnostic Markers for Neonatal Sepsis: Comparing Procalcitonin (PCT) and C-Reactive Protein (CRP)

Sucilathangam G., Amuthavalli K., Velvizhi G., Ashihabegum M.A., Jeyamurugan T., Palaniappan N.

1,3,4,5. Assistant Professor, Department of Microbiology, Tirunelveli Medical College, Tirunelveli, Tamil Nadu, India - 627 011. 2. MBBS Student, Department of Microbiology, Tirunelveli Medical College, Tirunelveli, Tamil Nadu, India - 627 011. 6. Professor, Department of Microbiology, Tirunelveli Medical College, Tirunelveli, Tamil Nadu, India - 627 011.

Correspondence Address :
Dr. G. Sucilathangam, M.D. (Micro),
Assistant Professor,
Department of Microbiology,
Tirunelveli Medical College,
Tirunelveli District, Tamil Nadu, India - 627 011.
Phone: 94420 63819
E -mail: drgsucila@rediffmail.com

Abstract

Background: Early recognition and diagnosis of neonatal sepsis are difficult because of the variable and non-specific clinical presentation of this condition. It is extremely important to make an early diagnosis of neonatal sepsis for the prompt institution of anti-microbial therapy, which improves outcomes.

Aims: The aim of this study is to determine the diagnostic performance of Procalcitonin (PCT) and C-Reactive Protein (CRP) as early diagnostic markers in detection of neonatal sepsis in intensive neonatal care unit in comparison to that of blood culture and haematological parameters like micro ESR and Total WBC count.

Methods and Materials: This prospective study was conducted on neonates admitted to neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) at Tirunelveli Medical College Hospital, Tirunelveli, Tamil Nadu, India from July’ 2010 and August’ 2010. Specimens of blood (n = 50 ) were obtained from each neonate prior to commencement of antibiotics for sepsis work up including haematological parameters like Erythrocyte sedimentation rate, Total laeukocyte count, absolute neutrophil count (ANC), immature neutrophils to total neutrophil count ratio (I/T ratio), platelet count, degenerative changes in the neutrophils. Blood culture and Antibiotic sensitivity test were carried out. Serum CRP level was measured using A-15 CRP Kit by immunoturbidimetric method. Serum PCT level was measured using quantitative immuno-luminometry method by Lumitest kit.

Statistical Analysis Used: Data were expressed as mean ± SD and statistical significance was assessed by the Chi-square test.

Results: 50% (7/14) of the neonates with sepsis had raised CRP levels > 6 mg/lit. About 43.7 % (7/16) of the neonates with suspected sepsis and 20 % (4/20) of the neonates with clinical sepsis had raised CRP levels. The sensitivity of CRP for predicting sepsis was 50.0 %, its specificity was 69.4 %, its positive predictive value was 38.8 % and its negative predictive value was 78.1 %. Most (64.3% or 9/14) of the infants with sepsis had PCT levels ≥ 10 ng/ml. Out of 50 cases, elevated PCT was detected in 22, whereas CRP was noticed only in 18 cases. Among the 14 culture positive cases, elevated serum PCT level was noticed in 13 (92.85 %) cases whereas CRP level was noticed in 7 (50 %) cases. The sensitivity of the PCT in detecting sepsis was 92.8 %, its specificity 75.0 %, its positive predictive value was 59.0 % and its negative predictive value was 96.0 %.The altered haematological parameters were only noticed in 7-14 % cases.

Conclusions: In this study serum procalcitonin level was superior to serum CRP level in terms of early diagnosis of neonatal sepsis, in detecting the severity of the illness and in evaluation of the response to antibiotic treatment. The PCT concentration in our study was elevated in culture positive neonates. In some cases of culture positive babies other sepsis screening tests were negative but the level of PCT was elevated. These findings support the usefulness of the PCT to establish an early diagnosis of neonatal sepsis.

Keywords

Neonatal sepsis, Early diagnostic markers, Procalcitonin (PCT), C-Reactive Protein (CRP), Blood Culture, Haematological parameters

Introduction
Neonatal sepsis is defined as an invasive bacterial infection which occurs in the first 4 weeks of life. The incidence of neonatal sepsis varies from 11-24.5 /1000 live births in India (1). The clinical manifestation of sepsis in newborn infants is usually non-specific. Because of the high morbidity and mortality which is associated with neonatal sepsis (2),(3), an antibiotic therapy is commenced soon after the onset of the symptoms before the diagnosis is confirmed by blood culture.

The diagnosis of neonatal sepsis on the basis of the clinical symptoms is not possible (4). Although isolation of the causative microorganisms by using blood culture has been the golden standard method for its diagnosis (5), the result is ready only 24- 72 hrs after the sampling and during this period, it is necessary to treat the suspicious infants for sepsis with antibiotics on the basis of the clinical symptoms and the risk factors. It is also possible that a pseudo-negative result may be obtained in some cases (5). The present trend which is being applied for infants who are suspected to have neonatal sepsis may lead to unnecessary and increased antibiotic consumption, a higher incidence of the sideeffects due to their use, increased resistance to the antibiotics, a long hospitalization, the separation of the infants from their mothers and increased health costs (6). Therefore, using fast diagnostic methods including laboratory markers could be beneficial for the diagnosis of neonatal sepsis (7).

In addition to the blood culture, other tests that are usually used for the diagnosis of neonatal sepsis include estimations of the whiteblood cell count (WBC), the absolute neutrophil count (ANC), micro ESR and the I/T ratio. Unfortunately, these tests do not have a high sensitivity and specificity in diagnosing neonatal sepsis.


Subsequent studies have suggested that additional markers such as C-reactive protein (CRP) and, more recently, procalcitonin (PCT) may be useful. CRP is an acute-phase reactant which is synthesized by the liver, which does not reliably differentiate between the systemic inflammatory response and sepsis. Meanwhile, some studies have shown that CRP has a limited use in the diagnosis of neonatal sepsis (7).

Recently, serum procalcitonin (PCT) has been reported as a measurable laboratory marker in the inflammatory response to the infection in some studies. Procalcitonin (PCT) is a 116-amino acid protein, a precursor of calcitonin which is produced by the thyroid. In sepsis, macrophages and the monocytic cells of the liver are involved in the synthesis of PCT. Several studies have reported on the usefulness of the quantitative measurement of PCT for an early diagnosis of sepsis in newborns (8). Actually, definitive data are lacking, which can validate CRP and PCT as screening tools in the Emergency Department.

Clinicians are frustrated by the limitations in the diagnosis of neonatal sepsis and they would benefit from reliable tests in diagnosing sepsis early in its course. Currently, no single test fulfills the criteria of an ideal diagnostic test. In neonatology, tests which use haematological indices remain in widespread use, despite the continuing concerns about their reliability in diagnosing neonatal sepsis. These concerns largely stem from the demonstrated marked variations in the predictive accuracy of the haematological parameters.

The aim of this study was to determine the diagnostic performance of PCT and CRP as early diagnostic markers for the detection of neonatal sepsis in the intensive neonatal care unit in comparison to that of blood culture and haematological parameters like micro ESR and total WBC count.

Material and Methods

Study Design and Settings
This prospective study was conducted on neonates who were admitted to the neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) at Tirunelveli Medical College Hospital, Tirunelveli, Tamil Nadu over a 6 month period (April’ 2010 to September’ 2010).

This study was approved by the Institutional Scientific and Ethical Committee, and written informed consents were obtained from the parents. The inclusion criteria were infants who were admitted to this NICU with signs which is suggestive of sepsis, or those who developed signs of sepsis while they were in the ward. The exclusion criteria were infants who were on antibiotics or those who developed the signs of sepsis within 72 hours of discontinuation of the antibiotics and those who had birth asphyxia, aspiration syndromes, laboratory findings which were suggestive of the inborn errors of metabolism and congenital anomalies.

Specimens and Tests Which Were Performed
The specimens of blood were obtained from each neonate prior to the commencement of the antibiotics for the sepsis work up, which included haematological parameters like the erythrocyte sedimentation rate, total laeukocyte count, the absolute neutrophil count (ANC), the immature neutrophils to total neutrophil count ratio (I/T ratio), platelet count, degenerative changes in the neutrophils, blood culture and antibiotic sensitivity, PCT and C-reactive protein (CRP) estimation.

Serum CRP
The serum CRP level was measured by using the A-15 CRP Kit (Bio-system, Costa Brava, Barcelona, Spain). The quantitative measurement of CRP from the serum was done by an immunoturbidimetric method in the laboratory according to the manufacturer’s instructions. The reagent was linear up to 150 mg/L. The reference value was up to 6 mg/L.

Serum PCT
The serum PCT level was measured by using a quantitative immuno-luminometry method and the Lumitest kit (BRAHMS Diagnostic, Berlin, Germany). In this assay, a PCT level of ≥0.5 ng/ ml was considered as pathological. PCT levels of 0.5‐2 ng/ml, 2‐10 ng/ml and >10 ng/ml were considered as weakly positive, positive, and strongly positive, respectively.

Statistical Analysis
The correlation of serum PCT and the CRP level with the haematological parameters (Total WBC count, Micro ESR and the I/T Ratio) and the blood culture for an early diagnosis of neonatal sepsis was compared statistically and the results were analyzed by using SPSS, version 12. P values of <0.05 were considered to be significant. By using the blood culture results as the gold standard, the sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive values and the negative predictive values of the PCT-Q and CRP for diagnosing sepsis were calculated. The sensitivity of a test was defined as the proportion of infants with sepsis and this was correctly identified by the test. The specificity of the test was defined as the proportion of infants without sepsis and this was correctly identified by the test. The positive predictive value of a test was defined as the proportion of infants with positive test results and who had sepsis. The negative predictive value of a test was defined as the proportion of infants with negative test results and who did not have sepsis.

Results

Based on the clinical findings and the laboratory data, fifty neonates who were eligible for the study were classified into three groups viz., proven sepsis (14 neonates), suspected sepsis (16 neonates) and clinical sepsis (20 neonates). The age of onset of the sepsis ranged from day 1 to day 24. The commonest organism which was isolated was Acinetobacter (5/14), followed by Klebsiella pneumoniae (2/14), Staphylococcus aureus (2/14), CONS (2/14), Klebsiella oxytoca (1/14), Citrobacter koseri (1/14) and Pseudomonas aeruginosa (1/14) (Table/Fig 1).

The variables like maturity, birth weight and the sex of the patients were compared in the three sepsis groups (Table/Fig 2). Early onset sepsis was confirmed in 29 (58 %) and late onset sepsis in 21 (42 %) patients. Ten out of 14 neonatal sepsis patients were identified as of the early onset type and 4 were identified as of the late-onset type. Out of 14 infants, 8 were preterm and 6 were term babies. Out of 14 neonates, 8 were males and 6 were females. All the study neonates survived at discharge, except one, who died due to low birth weight and as it was preterm and it was one of twins.

The haematological parameters in the sepsis groups were compared and presented in (Table/Fig 3). The total WBC count was normal in 12 out of 14 cultures in the proven sepsis cases. An elevated micro ESR level was observed in only one proven sepsis neonate. An abnormal I/T ratio was observed only in two cases.

Only 50% (7/14) of the neonates with sepsis had raised CRP levels of more than 6 mg/lit. About 43.7 % (7/16) of the neonates with suspected sepsis and 20 % (4/20) of the neonates with clinical sepsis had raised CRP levels. The serum PCT level in the different sepsis groups is presented in (Table/Fig 4).

The correlation between serum PCT and the CRP level is presented in (Table/Fig 5). A higher proportion of the neonates with sepsis had raised PCT levels (26 % vs. 18 %) than those without sepsis, but raised CRP levels were seen in the suspected sepsis cases than in the proven sepsis cases (22% vs. 14%). However, a significantly higher proportion of the infants with sepsis, after 48 hours of age (11/12 or 91.6 %), had raised PCT levels ≥ 2 ng/ml and raised CRP levels (5/12 or 41.6%) than those without sepsis (PCT: 6/26 or 23.1%; CRP: 2/26 or 7.7%).

The sensitivity of PCT in detecting sepsis was 92.8 %, its specificity was 75.0 %, its positive predictive value was 59.0 % and its negative predictive value was 96.0 %. The sensitivity of CRP in predicting sepsis was 50.0 %, its specificity was 69.4 %, its positive predictive value was 38.8 % and its negative predictive value was 78.1 %.

22 of the 50 recruited neonates were preterm, and 45% (10/22) of this latter group had sepsis. When compared with the preterm infants without sepsis, a higher proportion of the preterms with sepsis were found to have raised PCT (90% sepsis vs. 33.3% no sepsis) and raised CRP levels (40% sepsis vs. 25% no sepsis).

Only 14.3% (4/28) of the term infants who were recruited had sepsis. When compared with the term infants without sepsis, the proportions of the term infants with sepsis who had raised PCT (100% sepsis vs. 20.8% no sepsis) and raised CRP levels (75% sepsis vs. 33.3% no sepsis).

The level of serum PCT was compared with the haematological parameters (total WBC and Micro ESR), the CRP level and the blood culture, which is given in (Table/Fig 6). Among the 50 cases, an elevated PCT level was detected in 22 cases, whereas an elevated CRP level was noticed only in 18 cases. Among the 14 culture positive cases, an elevated serum PCT level was noticed in 13 (92.85 %) cases, whereas an elevated CRP level was noticed only in 7 (50 %) cases. The altered haematological parameters were only noticed in 7-14 % of the cases.

Discussion

Neonatal sepsis with its high mortality rate, still remains a diagnostic and treatment challenge for the neonatal health care providers. An early diagnosis of neonatal septicaemia helps the clinician in instituting antibiotic therapy at the earliest, thereby reducing the mortality rates in the neonates. An early identification of an infected neonate also helps in avoiding the unnecessary treatment of a noninfected neonate. The blood culture not only takes time, but it is also complicated, with a low yield. The readily achievable complete blood count and the laeukocyte differential assays have a relatively poor specificity for diagnosing sepsis. The associated band count and a leftward shift of the myeloid immaturity measurements may improve the diagnostic yield, but their subjective measurement is problematic. Therefore, the need persists for improved diagnostic indicators of neonatal sepsis.

There is no single reliable test for the early definite diagnosis of neonatal sepsis, and therefore, there is a continuing search for a new infection marker. The C‐reactive protein has been the most analyzed parameter for the detection of bacterial infections for years (9),(10). This protein acts as a “scavenger” because it leads to the opsonization of bacteria and the activation of the complement system and thereby facilitates phagocytosis in the inflammatory response. Procalcitonin (PCT) has been proposed as a marker of bacterial sepsis. The advantage of PCT as compared to C‐reactive protein is that the increase of the further in bacterial infection and its restoration to normal is more rapid (11).

In our study, the total WBC count was normal in 12 out of 13 cultures with proven sepsis. An elevated micro ESR level was not the reliable indicator of sepsis. An abnormal I/T ratio was observed only in two cases. This was contrary to the observations of Rodwell, Zipursky and Basu et al., (12), (13), (14). The degenerative changes in the neutrophils were not found to be a very sensitive indicator of sepsis.

In neonates, an elevated PCT level may help in predicting septicaemia; furthermore, low PCT levels were helpful in ruling out septicaemia as a diagnosis. Therefore, the PCT assessment could help the physicians in limiting the number of prescriptions for the antibiotics. In the present study, the PCT levels were remarkably high in the neonates with proven sepsis and also in the suspected sepsis cases. This finding was comparable with that of the study which was conducted by Yadolla Zahedpasha et al., (15) and Monneret et al., (16). During the present study, the PCT test detected all the infants with gram-negative sepsis. There was a significant correlation between the serum PCT level and the type of sepsis ( p< 0.001), which is comparable with Koksal et al., study findings (17). Chiesa et al., reported that the sensitivity of diagnosing late onset sepsis at an age after 48 hours of life in the neonates was 100% (18). In the present study, the sensitivity of detecting the late onset sepsis was 92.8%.

In the present study, the sensitivity of PCT for detecting sepsis (more than 0.5 ng /ml) was 92.8%, its specificity 75.0%, its positive predictive value was 59.0% and its negative predictive value was 96.0 % and the sensitivity of CRP for predicting sepsis (more than 6 mg/ L) was 50.0%, its specificity was 69.4%, its positive predictive value was 38.8% and its negative predictive value was 78.1%.

Sakha et al. investigated the role of procalcitonin (PCT) in the diagnosis of neonatal sepsis and its correlation with the C-Reactive Protein (CRP). The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value and the negative predictive value of PCT (more than 2 ng mL-1) were 66.7, 50, 28.6, 83.3 and those of CRP (more than 3.5 mg L–1) were 70.4, 72.2, 43.2 and 89%, respectively, in the diagnosis of neonatal sepsis (19). Ballot et al., studied 52 neonates with possible infections. Only 13 neonates had a definite infection, in whom the sensitivity and the negative predictive value of serum PCT was 89.5 and 95%, respectively. But they stated that although PCT was significantly related to the category of the infection, it was not sufficiently reliable to be the sole marker of neonatal sepsis. PCT would be useful as a part of the full sepsis evaluation, but it is relatively expensive. A negative PCT on presentation may rule out sepsis (20). Vazzalwar et al., assessed PCT for the diagnosis of late-onset sepsis in 67 neonates. At a PCT cutoff value of 1.0 ng mL–1 the sensitivity was found to be 97% and the specificity was 80%, while with CRP, sensitivity was 72% and the specificity was 93% (21). Boo et al., showed in 18 neonates among 87 infants with confirmed sepsis, based on the positive blood culture results, at a PCT cut-off level of greater than or equal to 2 ng mL–1, that the sensitivity and specificity, PPV and NPV were 88.9, 65.2, 40 and 95.7% and that for CRP, they were 55.6, 89.9, 58.8 and 88.6%, respectively (22). Chiesa et al., studied the reliability of the PCT concentration in 28 infants who had a severe early onset of neonatal sepsis. They found that the sensitivity, specificity, PPV and NPV were 92.6, 97.5, 94.3 and 96.8%, respectively. They also found that 24 infants had PCT levels which were higher than normal at the time of the diagnosis. However, at that time, only 13 of them had high CRP levels (18). Hatherill et al., in their study, showed that the sensitivity and specificity of the serum PCT level were 92.6 and 97.5%, respectively, in the diagnosis of early onset neonatal sepsis and that they were 100% in neonates with late onset sepsis (23).

Carol et al., in their study, showed that procalcitonin was more sensitive than the CRP in the diagnosis of septicaemia, meningitis and urinary tract infections (24). In our study, there were seven cases of culture positive sepsis which were accompanied by elevated levels of procalcitonin and CRP. In most of the culture positive cases, the other sepsis screening tests were negative, but the level of PCT was elevated. This was similar to Boo et al’s findings (22). These findings support the usefulness of PCT in establishing an early diagnosis of neonatal sepsis.

The present study confirmed the findings of other investigators that PCT was more sensitive than CRP in the detection of neonatal sepsis, earlier as the PCT level rose than the CRP level during sepsis. In a recent study, Koksal et al., concluded that the serum procalcitonin level was superior to the serum CRP level in terms of an early diagnosis of neonatal sepsis, in detecting the severity of the illness and in the evaluation of the response to the antibiotic treatment (17).

However, when PCT is used together with CRP, a negative PCT test result may help in “ruling out”, while a raised CRP result helps in “ruling in”, the possibility of sepsis, particularly of the late onset type. Based on the results of the present study, we recommend that the commencement of antibiotics in newborn infants should be based on the PCT results on the day of their admission to the NICU.

Among the 50 cases, an elevated PCT level was detected in 22, whereas an elevated CRP level was noticed only in 18 cases. Among the 14 culture positive cases, an elevated serum PCT level was noticed in 13 (92.85 %) cases, whereas an elevated CRP level was noticed only in 7 (50 %) cases. The altered haematological parameters were only noticed in 7-14 % of the cases.

Since the serum PCT levels were elevated in almost all the culture proven sepsis cases, PCT can be used as a good tool for the diagnosis of neonatal sepsis and for treating the sepsis cases. PCT is highly specific for bacterial infection and it helps differentiating it from viral infection. It correlates well with the progression and the severity of the infection. PCT helps in an early diagnosis of the sepsis on the day of the admission itself, before the blood culture report is ready (usually after 3-5 days). PCT helps in avoiding antibiotic therapy where it is not required and thereby reducing the cost and the occurrence of bacterial resistance. PCT can also be employed for the prognosis of sepsis.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the findings of the present study confirm that the serum levels of PCT is a more reliable marker than the serum levels of CRP or the WBC counts in the early diagnosis of neonatal sepsis and in the evaluation of the response of the disease to the antibiotic therapy. The benefit of measuring serum PCT routinely in the diagnosis and follow-up of neonatal sepsis, is that it reduces the hospital costs. Such a benefit might support a wider acceptance of the test in the routine practice.

Acknowledgement

The authors would like to thank the Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR), New Delhi and the Dean, Tirunelveli Medical College, Tamil Nadu and for the facilities which were provided for conducting the study.

References

References

1.
Jaswal RS, Kaushal RK,Goel A, Pathania K. Role of the C-reactive protein in deciding the duration of the antibiotic therapy in neonatal septicaemia. Indian Paediatrics 2003;40:800-83.
2.
Bizzarro MJ, Raskind C, Baltimore RS, Gallagher PG. Seventy five years of neonatal sepsis at Yale: 1928-2003. Paediatrics 2005;116: 595-602.
3.
Stoll BJ, Hansen NI, Adams-Chapman I, Fanaroff AA, Hintz SR, Vohr B, Higgins RD. Neurodevelopmental and growth impairment among extremely low-birth-weight infants with neonatal infections. JAMA 2004; 292:2357-65.
4.
Remington JS, Klein JO, Wilson CB, and Baker CJ. Infectious diseases of foetuses and newborn infants. N Engl J Med 2006; 355:531-532.
5.
Panero A, Pacifico L, Rossi N, Mancuso G, Stegagno M, Chiesa C. Interleukin 6 in neonates with early and late onset infections. Paediatr Infect Dis J 1997;16:370-75.
6.
Magudumana MO, Ballot DE, Cooper PA, Trusler J, Cory BJ, Viljoen E, et al. Serial interleukin 6 measurements in the early diagnosis of neonatal sepsis. J Trop Paediatr 2000;46:267-71.
7.
Blommendahl J, Janas M, Laine S, Miettinen A, Ashorn P. Comparison of procalcitonin with CRP and the differential white blood cell count for the diagnosis of culture-proven neonatal sepsis. Scand J Infect Dis 2002;34: 620-22.
8.
Gendrel D, Assicot M, Raymond J. Procalcitonin as a marker for the early diagnosis of neonatal infections. J Paediatr 1996;128:570-73.
9.
Manneret G, Labaune JM, Isaac C, Bienvenu F, Putet G, Bienvenu J. Procalcitonin and C-reactive protein levels in neonatal infections. Acta Paediatr 1997;86:209-12.
10.
Chiesa C, Signore F, Assumma M, Buffone E, Tramontezzi P, Osborn JF, et al. Serial measurements of the C reactive protein and interleukin 6 in the immediate postnatal period: the reference intervals and the analysis of the maternal and the perinatal confounders. Clin Chem 2001;47:1016–22.
11.
Kafetzis DA, Tigani GS, Costalos C. Immunologic markers in the neonatal period: their diagnostic value and accuracy in infection. Expert Rev Mol Dign 2005;5:231-39.
12.
Rodwell RL, Leslie AL, Tudehope DL. Early diagnosis of neonatal sepsis by using a hematological scoring system. J Paediatr 1988;112:161- 66.
13.
Zipursky A, Palko J, Milner R, Akenzua GI. The hematology of the bacterial infections in premature infants. Paediatrics 1976,57: 839- 53.
14.
Basu S, Guruprasad, Narang A, Garewal G. The diagnosis of sepsis in high risk neonates by using a hematologic scoring system. Indian J Hematolo Blood Transfusion 1999;17:32-34.
15.
Zahedpasha Y, AhmadpourKacho M, Hajiahmadi M, Haghshenas M. Procalcitonin as a marker of neonatal sepsis. Iran J Paediatr 2009;19:117-22.
16.
Monneret G, Labaune JM, Isaac C. Procalcitonin and C-reactive protein levels in neonatal infections. Acta Paediatr 1997;86:209-12.
17.
Koksal N, Harmanci R, Getinkaya M. The roles of procalcitonin and CRP in the diagnosis and the follow up of neonatal sepsis cases. Turk J Paediatr 2007;49:21‐9.
18.
Chiesa C, Panero A, Rossi N. Reliability of the procalcitonin concentrations in the diagnosis of sepsis in critically ill neonates. Clin Infect Dis 1998;26:664-72.
19.
Sakha K, Husseini M.B, Seyyedsadri N. The role of procalcitonin in the diagnosis of neonatal sepsis and the correlation between procalciton in and C-reactive protein in these patients. Pak J Biol Sci 2008;11:1785-90.
20.
Ballot DE, Perovic O, Galpin J, Cooper PA. Serum procalcitonin as an early marker of neonatal sepsis. S. Afr Med J 2004;94:851-54.
21.
Vazzalwar R, Pina-Rodrigues E, Puppala BL, Angst DB, Schweig L. Procalcitonin as a screening test for late-onset sepsis in preterm, very low birth weight infants. J Perinatol 2005;25:397-402.
22.
Boo NY, Nor Azlina AA, Rohana J. Usefulness of a semi-quantitative procalcitonin test kit for the early diagnosis of neonatal sepsis. Singapore Med J 2008;49:204-08.
23.
Hatherill M, Tibby SM, Sykes K, Turner C, Murdoch IA. The diagnostic markers of infection and the comparison of procalcitonin with C-reactive protein and the leucocyte count. Arch Dis Child 1999;81: 417-21.
24.
Carol ED, Thomason AP, Hart CA. Procalcitonin as a marker of sepsis. Int J Antimicrob Agents 2002;20:1‐9.

DOI and Others

ID: JCDR/2012/3688:0021

Date of Submission: Nov 22, 2011
Date of peer review: Jan 20, 2012
Date of acceptance: Apr 09, 2012
Date of Publishing: May 31, 2012

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)
  • 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