Outpatient Evaluation of Fever
Outpatient Evaluation of Fever: Excerpt from Pediatric Infectious Disease
Basic Issues in Pediatric Fever
Fever is a common presenting complaint in pediatrics. The pediatrician’s concern about fever in a child can be summarized by the following questions:
1. What is the chance, given this temperature elevation, that this child has an
evolving serious bacterial infection?
2. What should be the proper evaluation and empiric treatment concerning this
possibility of an evolving serious bacterial infection?
The question regarding the management of the well-appearing, nontoxic, febrile
infant remains one of the most controversial in pediatrics and emergency
medicine. Proposed strategies are constantly revised and depend on the child
’s age, underlying condition of the child, and development of new vaccinations.
One traditional approach is to divide the evaluation of the febrile child by
age.
Neonate (0 to 28 days)
Epidemiology and Etiology
More than one half of all women have bacterial genital tract colonization, often
with group B streptococcus. About one half of neonates born to colonized women
themselves become colonized. Of these colonized infants, about 1% develop
invasive disease. Risk factors for invasive neonatal disease include
prematurity, maternal fever during delivery, and prolonged rupture of
membranes.
There are certain patient populations in which the chance of a serious bacterial
infection is high and the physical exam and laboratory evaluations nonspecific
enough that a full workup and empiric antibiotics are always indicated. Such a
patient is the child in the first month of life.
Presentation
The history, physical exam, and even complete laboratory evaluations do not
separate these infants into
“high-risk” (high statistical likelihood to have a serious bacterial infection) and “low-risk” categories.
Diagnosis
Studies have suggested that even a negative full diagnostic workup, including
complete blood count, urinalysis, stool Gram stain, and lumbar puncture, will
miss a percentage of neonates who ultimately have a serious bacterial
infection, including bacteremia and urinary tract infections.
Management
Two regimens are accepted for empiric treatment of neonatal fever. Ampicillin is
usually given to address the possibility of
Listeria monocytogenes infection. The second agent given is usually a third-generation cephalosporin or
gentamycin to cover gram-negative organisms.
Standard practice continues to be a full evaluation and admission for
intravenous antibiotics pending results of blood, urine, and cerebrospinal
fluid (CSF) cultures.
Infant (28 to 59 days)
For the child older than 1 month of age, efforts begin to define those children
whose risk for a serious bacterial infection is such that they could be managed
as outpatients and avoid the automatic admission with intravenous antibiotics.
Etiology
The organisms in this population are similar to those found in the neonatal
group, with group B streptococcus, gram-negative enteric organisms and
occasionally
Streptococcus pneumoniae being the major pathogens.
Presentation
Definition of fever in this population is similar to that in the neonatal group.
Diagnosis
In the early 1980s, the first attempt was made to develop diagnostic criteria.
The Yale Observation Scale was entirely clinical and measured characteristics
such as cry, social response, and hydration status. This was found to have a
negative predictive value of about 80%; that is, up to 20% of those who
satisfied criteria for discharge did indeed have a serious bacterial infection.
This rate was not sensitive enough to satisfy most clinicians.
The Rochester Criteria in the late 1980s was the first to attempt to incorporate
laboratory data in evaluation of the febrile infant. The Rochester Criteria
used white blood cell (WBC) count, urinalysis, and stool WBC count as part of
the protocol. Major criticisms of these criteria were that CSF analysis was not
included and that the criteria did not include clinical impression as part of
the evaluation process.
Next came the Baskin Study in 1992. In this protocol, infants 1 to 2 months of
age with a rectal temperature of greater than 38
°C (100.4°F) and a nontoxic appearance received a full laboratory evaluation, including
lumbar puncture, complete blood count, urinalysis, and stool studies. Patients
with unremarkable findings on these screening tests received intramuscular
ceftriaxone before discharge with close follow-up. Although there were a number
of positive blood, urine, and stool cultures, these children had negative
cultures on follow-up evaluation, and no complications were noted as a result
of outpatient management. Criticisms of the study included the use of a
dipstick urine evaluation rather than a microscopic urinalysis and, most
importantly, no control population. It was thought that this protocol
essentially substituted intravenous antibiotic therapy with outpatient
intramuscular ceftriaxone.
In 1993, Baker and colleagues developed the Philadelphia Protocol. In this
study, febrile infants between 1 and 2 months of age all received a full
diagnostic workup including lumbar puncture, urinalysis, and stool studies if
diarrhea was present. A low-risk infant was defined as having a peripheral WBC
count of less than 15,000/mm
3, less than 10 WBCs per high-power field on urinalysis, a CSF with less than 8
WBCs per high-power field, and no evidence of a focal soft tissue infection.
The criteria also included a peripheral blood band
–to-neutrophil ratio of less than 0.2. These screening criteria were found to be
100% sensitive in identifying those children with serious bacterial illnesses,
with a negative predictive value of 100%. Patients who had negative diagnostic
evaluations were actually discharged home with no antibiotic therapy given. The
negative predictive value was such that this study is cited today as proof that
a select group of infants between the
ages of 1 and 2 months can be managed as outpatients without intravenous or intramuscular antibiotics.
Management
It has been suggested that no plan for outpatient management of febrile children
in this age group is entirely without risk. Guidelines continue to be revised
and new recommendations formulated, including those that give the option of
deferring lumbar puncture in the correct low-risk setting.
The C-reactive protein (CRP) is an acute-phase reactant that is sometimes used
as an indicator for evolving serious bacterial infections. Some studies have
found the CRP to be a better indicator than the peripheral WBC count or
absolute neutrophil count in predicting those febrile infants who truly have an
evolving bacterial infection. A CRP of less than 5 mg/dL has been cited as the
cutoff for effectively ruling out bacterial infection. Some investigators have
suggested that a lumbar puncture can be deferred if the CRP is less than 5
mg/dL. Recent guidelines by Baraff and associates (2000) suggest that if lumbar
puncture is deferred, empiric antibiotics should not be given because
pretreatment of a child in whom the CSF has not been examined may make
subsequent interpretation of the CSF difficult.
Recent guidelines have suggested the following options: all febrile infants
receive a complete blood count, urinalysis, CRP, and blood and urine culture.
Options outlined in Table 7.1.
Children (3 months to 36 months)
Epidemiology and Etiology
As in the case of the well-appearing febrile infant, there remains considerable
debate about management of a febrile child aged 3 months to 3 years.
In the early 1970s, the first reports appeared of S. pneumoniae bacteremia in well-appearing febrile children. The reported rate of bacteremia
in febrile, well-appearing children was approximately 4% and was labeled
“benign” because most of these children had resolution of bacteremia without sequelae.
After these early reports, numerous studies attempted to determine the actual
morbidity associated with this
“silent” bacteremia in children. The concern is that this bacteremia could result in one
of the following:
• Persistent fever
• Progression to sepsis, especially in the case of Neisseria meningitidis (Fig. 7.1)
• “Seeding” of secondary sites; the most feared site being the CSF (Fig. 7.2)
The widespread use of H. influenzae conjugate vaccine has essentially eliminated this pathogen. The organism
currently causing 90% of the bacteremia in this age group is
S. pneumoniae. Bacteria less frequently encountered include Salmonella species and N. meningitidis.
Presentation
Children with pneumococcal bacteremia often present with sudden onset of high
fever. There are typically nontoxic in appearance, and no focus is found on
physical examination.
Diagnosis
About 2% to 3% of febrile children are bacteremic. In addition, about 3% of
these bacteremia patients may progress to meningitis. Thus, the basic questions
confronting the clinician while examining a well-appearing febrile child with
no focus of infection are the following:
1. How do we identify those children who are actually bacteremic at the time of
evaluation?
2. Does presumptive treatment in these children with either oral or
intramuscular antibiotics actually alter the natural history of the bacteremia?
Although it makes theoretical sense that bacteremic children identified early
and presumptively treated have reduced progression to complications of
bacteremia (i.e., meningitis), is this indeed the case?
Management
In 1993, Baraff published guidelines for the management of fever in children. In
this publication, it was suggested that when evaluating fever without a source
in children, a complete blood count should be obtained. If the WBC count was
more than 15,000/mm
3, this represented an increased chance of bacteremia with the resultant chance
(albeit small) of meningitis. It has been recommended to give antibiotic
treatment to these children to prevent the chance of meningitis.
Baraff’s guidelines were offered as suggestions, yet rapidly became the standard of
care. Infants with fever without a source routinely had complete blood counts
and blood cultures obtained and empiric antibiotics given. The concern was that
this abundance of antibiotics would generate increased bacterial resistance (a
concern that has proved correct). In addition, there was no conclusive evidence
that empiric antibiotics truly prevented the bacteremia progressing to
meningitis. Over the next 10 years, many studies sought to address the issue of
empiric treatment. The methodology and results of these studies continue to be
debated.
In 1994, Fleisher and associates performed a multicenter study of more than
6,000 children. In this study, children 3 to 36 months of age with a
temperature of more than 39
°C (102.2°F) had a blood culture obtained and were given either a single dose of
ceftriaxone or oral amoxicillin. The incidence of bacteremia was 2.8%. In the
analysis of the data, the authors stated that fewer children who were treated
with ceftriaxone developed meningitis than those who were given oral
amoxicillin. This study continues to be frequently quoted as evidence that
antibiotics given to febrile children will prevent meningitis.
In an accompanying editorial, Dr. Sara Long (1994) both praised the study and
commented on its shortcomings. She commented that less than one fourth of all
febrile children had examinations of the CSF. One of the patients with
meningitis placed to the amoxicillin group actually had pneumococcus isolated
from the CSF before therapy was begun; Dr. Long commented that this should have
been reported as a misdiagnosis, not amoxicillin failure. Two of the
ceftriaxone-treated children with bacteremia caused by
H. influenzae type B and Salmonella species had, on repeat visit, a CSF pleocytosis of 117 and 158 WBCs,
respectively. Although this did not meet the preset requirements of more than
500 WBCs for the diagnosis of meningitis, Dr. Long suggested that most
infectious disease specialists would indeed consider these two cases, in a
setting of prior bacteremia, to be bacterial meningitis that had developed
despite the administration of ceftriaxone. Dr. Long concluded that there were
still no data that ceftriaxone, or any antibiotic, prevented the rare
occurrence of pneumococcal meningitis.
In 1997, Rothrock and colleagues undertook a meta-analysis of several published
studies to determine whether oral antibiotics given to febrile children
prevented serious bacterial infections or meningitis in patients with
S. pneumoniae bacteremia. Ten available studies with 656 total cases of S. pneumoniae occult bacteremia were identified. Patients who received oral antibiotics had
fewer serious bacterial infections than untreated patients, 3.3% versus 9.7%.
Meningitis developed in 0.8% of children in the oral antibiotic group and 2.7%
of untreated children. The authors themselves concluded that the modest
decreased risk for serious bacterial infection in patients with occult
pneumococcal bacteremia was
“insufficient evidence” to state that oral antibiotics prevented meningitis. Subsequent reviewers,
citing this article, have pointed to the reduced number of cases of meningitis
as proof that antibiotics were effective and warranted.
In 2000, Alpern and associates retrospectively reviewed 5,900 children 2 to 24
months of age with temperature higher than 39
°C (102.2°F). Patients with positive cultures for pathogenic bacteria were evaluated and
their outcomes determined. Occult bacteremia was seen in 1.9%. Ninety-six
percent of patients with pneumococcal bacteremia had resolution of their
bacteremia without the use of parental antibiotics. The rate of meningitis or
death was 0.03%. These numbers were significantly less than the rates of
bacteremia and meningitis determined in prior studies. The authors concluded
that the conjugate
Haemophilus vaccine and the ability to monitor blood cultures continuously, which allows
for early detection of bacteremia, resulted in low rates of adverse outcomes
from occult bacteremia. The authors suggested that these findings should be
considered in management strategies. They also stated that the development of a
conjugate vaccine against
S. pneumoniae may “ultimately lay the issue to rest.”
In December 2000, in anticipation of the approval of the conjugate pneumococcal
vaccine, Baraff published revised guidelines for the management of fever
without a source in infants and children. The author noted that the anticipated
widespread use of conjugate pneumococcal vaccine might very well make the use
of WBC count and blood cultures, with empiric antibiotic treatment becoming
obsolete.
Baraff recommended raising the temperature threshold for obtaining screening WBC
to 39.5
°C (103.1°F). He also suggested the following strategy:
1. In patients 3 years of age and older, no testing is required for temperatures
lower than 39
°C (102.2°F) because the risk for bacteremia is less than 1%.
2. Complete blood counts and blood cultures should be obtained in children
younger than 3 years of age with fever without a source and a temperature
higher than 39.5
°C (103.1°F). Patients who have fever without a source who are 3 to 24 months of age with a temperature higher than 39°C (102.2°F) should also have these tests because the risk for bacteremia in this age
group is about 3%.
3. Urinalysis and urine culture should be obtained in all febrile males 6 months
of age and younger and in uncircumcised males 6 to 12 months of age. All
females younger than 12 months of age should also receive urinalysis and
culture.
4. In patients whose WBC count is more than 15,000/m3 or whose absolute neutrophil count is more than 10,000 mm3, the risk for pneumococcal bacteremia is about 8%. In these patients, the
administration of empiric antibiotics could be considered. Ceftriaxone has been
recommended, although many practitioners will continue to use oral amoxicillin.
Future Considerations
Management strategies are not intended to be rigidly applied in every
circumstance. Physicians have the option to tailor their management on the
basis of such factors as follow-up, the presence of a telephone, and the
ability of a patient to return for reevaluation the following day. Emergency
room physicians often treat more aggressively than a private practice
pediatrician who knows that he or she will be able to speak with the family in
6 hours. In the era of conjugate vaccines for both
H. influenzae and S. pneumoniae, there continues to be a turn away from rigid protocols involving complete
blood cell counts, blood cultures, and empiric treatment. Many physicians
currently advocate a
“no test, no treatment” strategy with careful watchful waiting, as was done in the early 1970s before
the beginning of the
“bacteremia bandwagon.” As the incidence of bacteremia decreases, the emphasis may be more on
observation and close follow-up than on laboratory evaluation and empiric
therapy.
Selected Readings
Alpern ER, Alessandrini EA, Bell LM, et al. Occult bacteremia from a pediatric
emergency department: current prevalence, time to detection, and outcome.
Pediatrics 2000;106(3):505–511.
Baker MD, Bell LM, Avner JR. The efficacy of routine outpatient management
without antibiotics of fever in selected Infants.
Pediatrics 1999;103(3):627–631.
Baraff LJ. Management of fever without source in infants and children. Ann Emerg Med 2000;36(6):
602–614.
Fleisher GR, Rosenberg N, Vinci R, et al. Intramuscular versus oral antibiotic
therapy for the prevention of meningitis and other bacterial sequelae in young,
febrile children at risk for occult bacteremia.
J Pediatr 1994;124(4):504–512.
Issacman DJ, Burke BL. Utility of the serum c-reactive protein for detection of
occult bacterial infection in children.
Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med 2002;156(9):905–909.
Long SS. Antibiotic therapy in febrile children: “best laid schemes.” J Pediatr 1994;124(4):585–588.
Roth Rock SG, Green SM, Harper MB, et al. Parental vs. oral antibiotics in the
prevention of serious bacterial infections in children with
Streptococcus pneumoniae occult bacteremia: a meta-analysis. Acad Emerg Med 1998;5(6)599–606.
Pictures
Book Source Details
- Book Title: Pediatric Infectious Disease
- Author(s): Donald Janner MD
- Year of Publication: 2004
- Copyright Details: Pediatric Infectious Disease, Copyright © 2004 Lippincott Williams & Wilkins.
More About Mononucleosis
More Medical Textbooks Online about Mononucleosis
Review other book chapters online related to Mononucleosis:
Medical Books Excerpts
- Fever
- "In a Page: Signs and Symptoms" (2004)
- [ read ]
- FEVER
- "Differential Diagnosis in Primary Care" (2007)
- [ read ]
- Fever
- "Handbook of Signs & Symptoms (Third Edition)" (2006)
- [ read ]
- Lassa fever
- "Professional Guide to Diseases (Eighth Edition)" (2005)
- [ read ]
- Fever
- "The 10-Minute Diagnosis Manual: Symptoms and Signs in the Time-Limited Encounter" (2000)
- [ read ]
- Fever
- "Alarming Signs and Symptoms: Lippincott Manual of Nursing Practice Series" (2007)
- [ read ]
- Fever
- "Signs & Symptoms: A 2-in-1 Reference for Nurses" (2007)
- [ read ]
- Fever
- "The Diagnostic Approach to Symptoms and Signs in Pediatrics" (2006)
- [ read ]
- FEVER
- "Differential Diagnosis in Primary Care" (2007)
- [ read ]
- Fever
- "Pediatric Complaints and Diagnostic Dilemmas" (2003)
- [ read ]
Copyright notice for book excerpts: Copyright © 2008 Lippincott Williams & Wilkins. All rights reserved.
|
|
More About This Book:
Title: Pediatric Infectious Disease
Authors: Donald Janner MD
Publisher: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins
Copyright: 2004
ISBN: 0-7817-5584-0
|
|
» Next page: Surveys relating to Mononucleosis
Rate This Website
What do you think about the features of this website?
Take our user survey and have your say:
Website User Survey
Medical Tools & Articles:
Next articles:
Tools & Services:
Medical Articles:
Forums & Message Boards
- Ask or answer a question at the Boards:
