Skip to main content

Advertisement

We're creating a new version of this page. See preview

  • Research note
  • Open Access

Clinical outcome and isolated pathogens among neonates with sepsis in Democratic Republic of the Congo: a cross-sectional study

BMC Research Notes201912:303

https://doi.org/10.1186/s13104-019-4346-5

  • Received: 12 April 2019
  • Accepted: 24 May 2019
  • Published:

Abstract

Objective

Neonatal sepsis still remains a significant cause of morbidity and mortality in developing countries. The prediction of the neonatal sepsis outcome depends on the anticipation from the clinical history, suspicion from clinical findings and confirmation by laboratory tests. This study aimed to determine the clinical outcome and isolated pathogens among neonates with sepsis in Butembo, Democratic Republic of the Congo.

Results

The most frequent bacteria related to a poor outcome were Staphylococcus aureus, Escherichia coli, Pseudomonas aeruginosa and Klebsiella spp. Most of isolated bacteria were found to be hospital-acquired infections. Therefore, adherence to infection prevention and control measures would reduce reduced rate of neonatal sepsis in our setting. The empiric antibiotic treatment should cover the spectrum of bacteria responsible of neonatal sepsis in Butembo, DRC.

Keywords

  • Clinical outcome
  • Risk factor
  • Neonatal sepsis
  • Butembo
  • DRC

Introduction

Neonatal sepsis constitutes a major health concern during the first 4 weeks of life [1]. It is a major cause of death, with about 26% worldwide [1]. In Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC), sepsis account for 16% of all causes of neonatal deaths behind prematurity (34.7%) and birth asphyxia and trauma (28.6%), respectively [2]. The mortality rate of neonatal sepsis is evaluated based on the sepsis definition used. When considering all bacteraemic infections, the reported mortality rate in neonatal sepsis varies from 10 to 40% [3]. The mortality may vary according to the onset of signs and symptoms of sepsis.

Depending on the onset of clinical symptoms, neonatal sepsis is classified into early-onset neonatal sepsis (EoNS) which occurs within 72 h of life and late-onset neonatal sepsis (LoNS) which occurs beyond 72 h of life. The infectious source for EONS is most probable from the maternal genital tract while LoNS is usually a nosocomial infection consecutive from intensive neonatal care complication, or an acquired community infection [4, 5].

Risk factors for acquiring neonatal sepsis include some maternal factors and factors related to the neonates and the care provided to him [6]. These factors, combined to the pathogens responsible of sepsis may predict the outcome of the sick neonate. Despite efforts and interventions supplied by the government of the DRC, the neonatal sepsis still has a non-negligible poor outcome. Knowledge on pathogens related to the poor outcome of neonates with sepsis in Butembo is not documented.

Anticipation from the clinical history, suspicion from clinical findings and confirmation by laboratory tests is essential for predict the outcome of the neonate with sepsis [7]. Therefore, this study aimed to determine the clinical outcome and isolated pathogens among neonates with sepsis in Butembo, DRC.

Main text

Methods

Operational definition

Since there is no consensus on the definition of sepsis 3.0 [8] in the paediatric population, in this study, we considered the sepsis 2.0 version definition of the International Paediatric Sepsis Consensus Criteria (IPSC) of neonatal sepsis. It defines neonatal sepsis as a clinical syndrome characterized by systemic signs and positive culture during the first 4 weeks of life [9]. Neonates falling in the above definition were considered as neonates with confirmed sepsis while those with more than two clinical manifestation of a systemic infection although with negative culture was considered as probable or suspected cases of sepsis. A negative culture does not exclude sepsis in neonates.

In this study, good outcome was considered when the neonate improved after completion of treatment without complication like shock, meningitis, seizure, blindness and deafness. Meanwhile, a poor outcome was considered when neonate was not improved after completion of treatment, presented with complications, referred to other hospitals or died.

Study design and setting

A prospective cross-sectional study was conducted at three hospitals in Butembo between September and November 2018. The health facilities in which the study was conducted were selected according to their hierarchy (general hospital, general referral hospital, and teaching hospital). Butembo is a commercial city located in North-Kivu, Eastern part of the DRC; region facing humanitarian crisis for several years and facing the on-going Ebola outbreak. Mother and sick neonate pairs constituted the study population. The sick neonates were those with sepsis and those with the history of maternal infection. Neonates suspected with sepsis but who died immediately or upon arrival and blood samples were not yet taken were excluded from the study. Neonates with congenital malformation or dysmorphic features, those diagnosed with malaria parasitaemia and those from HIV-positive mothers, those under antibiotics therapy, those above 28 days of life and those whom their parents or guardians did not consent to participate to the study were also excluded.

Sample size

The estimation of the sample size (N) was based on the prevalence (P) reported in previous survey report [10] using the Fischer’s formula with a maximum error of 5% (d) within a standard normal deviation of 1.96 for 95% confidence interval (CI).
$$N = \frac{{Z^{2} \times P \times \left( {1 - P} \right)}}{{d^{2} }}$$

Therefore, the sample size was 207 neonates. By adding 10% of margin for non-respondents, the final sample size was 228 neonates.

Sampling procedures and processing

Structured pre-tested questionnaires were used to collect demographic and clinical information from the mothers and sick neonates. Data collected from the mother included: age, educational level, employment, marital status, gravidity and parity, antenatal care attendance, genitourinary infection during the pregnancy, maternal fever during labour, membrane rupture time, stained and foul smelling amniotic liquid and number of vaginal examination. Data collected from the neonate included: the gestational age, mode of delivery, gender, birth weight, Apgar score at first minute, insertion of umbilical catheter, mechanical ventilation, the age of the neonate at the time of suspicion of sepsis and/or signs of sepsis, and the outcome (good or poor). The sepsis signs and symptoms considered in this study included fever, hypothermia, jaundice, difficulty in suckling, tachypnea, bradypnea, tachycardia, bradycardia, vomiting, irritability, lethargy, grunting, cyanosis, pallor, convulsion, and septic rash. Each neonate was follow up until discharged from the hospital.

Approximately 1.5 to 2 mL of blood sample were collected using an aseptic technique and sent at the Central Research Laboratory of the “Université Catholique du Graben” for the culture. The culture and identification of the pathogens were done by the methods described by Koneman [11]. Briefly, the sample was aseptically inoculated in the brain heart infusion broth and incubated at 35–37 °C for microbial growth observation. At the same time, subcultures were done on enriched media (blood agar, chocolate agar and McConkey agar). The identification was done by using the colony morphological characteristics, Gram staining and biochemical tests.

Data analysis

All the data were analysed using the SPSS software version 22. The proportions were used for categorical variables. Associations between the outcome and the independent’s exposure variables were assessed. The independent variables included socio-demographic and clinical data collected from the mother and the neonate. Significance tests of proportions were done using Chi-Square test and Odds ratios (OR). The two-tailed P-values were considered to be statistically significant if ≤ 0.05 within a 95% CI.

Results

From September to November 2018, 228 neonates were recruited. Among them, 69 (30.3%) had a positive blood culture. The poor outcome among all the recruited neonates was observed in 48 (21.1%) cases. Of the 69 neonates who had a positive blood culture, 20 (29.0%) had a poor outcome. Bacteria related with poor outcome were (in order of their frequencies) Staphylococcus aureus, Escherichia coli, Pseudomonas aeruginosa, Klebsiella spp., Acinetobacter spp., coagulase negative Staphylococci, Streptococcus pneumonia, Enterococcus spp., and Enterobacter spp. (Table 1).
Table 1

Distribution of pathogen isolated according to the outcome and the time of infection onset

Isolated pathogen

Outcome

Infection onset

Total

Good

Poor

EoNS

LoNS

Acinetobacter spp.

1

2

0

3

3

Citrobacter spp.

2

0

0

2

2

CoNS

6

2

1

7

8

E. coli

6

3

3

6

9

Enterobacter spp.

1

1

0

2

2

Enterococcus spp.

2

1

1

2

3

Klebsiella spp.

4

2

2

4

6

P. aeruginosa

4

2

0

6

6

S. agalactiae

8

0

6

2

8

S. aureus

14

6

5

15

20

S. pneumoniae

1

1

0

2

2

Total

49

20

18

51

69

The isolates distribution based on the time of infection onset shows a predominance of bacteria in LoNS than in EoNS. The prevalent isolates in LoNS are Staphylococcus aureus followed by coagulase negative Staphylococci (CoNS), Escherichia coli and Pseudomonas aeruginosa. Meanwhile, Streptococcus agalactiae (Group B Streptococci) is prevalent in EoNS, followed by Staphylococcus aureus, Escherichia coli, and Klebsiella pneumoniae (Table 1).

The outcome of neonatal sepsis regarding the time on the infection onset is resumed in Table 2. Among the 91 (39.9%) neonates with EoNS, 17 (18.7%) had a poor outcome while among the 137 (60.1%) neonates with LoNS, 31 (22.6%) had a poor outcome. The difference was not statistically significant (P > 0.05).
Table 2

The outcome of neonatal sepsis regarding the time of infection onset

Variables

Outcome

Total

P-value

Healed

Death

Time of the infection onset

 EoNS

74 (81.3)

17 (18.7)

91 (39.9)

0.474

 LoNS

106 (77.4)

31 (22.6)

137 (60.1)

Total

180 (78.9)

48 (21.1)

228 (100)

None of the studied maternal and neonatal risk factors, and clinical signs was statistically related to a poor outcome (Additional file 1).

Discussion

The findings of this study showed that most of the bacteria related to poor outcome in neonates with sepsis are almost the same with those responsible of LoNS. This means that they are most probably hospital-acquired infections (HAI). The HAI bacteria may be more virulent and difficult to treat, therefore responsible of poor outcome. These findings are similar to those of Mhada et al. in Tanzania [12], who showed that bacteria related to a poor outcome of neonatal sepsis are HAI and mostly found in neonates with LoNS. S. aureus can be transmitted from health care providers and relatives to the newborn [13, 14]. CoNS has been reported to be a leading cause of neonatal sepsis in Egypt [15], similarly as in this study. The isolation of CoNS is usually taken as contaminant, but in case it has been proved to be pathogenic, the source of infection is medical devices, and it is seen more often in LoNS. Streptococcus agalactiae is among bacterial gallery which may be acquired from the maternal vagina [16]. They are mostly isolated in EoNS, like in this study. In developed countries, following the GBS prophylaxis, Escherichia coli have been reported as a frequent isolate responsible for neonatal sepsis [17]. In developing countries, E. coli has also been identified among the most frequent causative bacteria with an infection rate varying from 15.7 to 77.1% [18, 19].

The diversity of major bacteria responsible for neonatal sepsis may be due to the fact that the bacterial spectrum varies from a region to another [16, 20]. Other factors like the study setting and population, the adherence to hand hygiene practice may explain this variation observed.

The poor outcome among neonates with sepsis was more observed in LoNS. Meanwhile, this was not statistically significant. Similar findings have been demonstrated in other studies [13, 21, 22]. The prolonged use of an invasive catheter and parenteral nutrition, respiratory infections and cardiovascular diseases are factors which fueled the high rate of LoNS [23, 24].

None of the maternal and neonatal risk factors, and neonatal signs was statistically related to a poor outcome of sepsis. This may be explained by the fact that none of them change the outcome of sepsis once present. The cause of sepsis and its management, including the related supportive care, would rather determine the outcome of the neonatal sepsis.

Regarding to our findings, the clinical outcome of neonatal sepsis in Butembo was not satisfactory. Any of the risk factors was found to be significant. Therefore, health personnel should improve their skills in care-giving and hospitals should get advanced equipment. Aseptic measures should be applied when invasive procedures are performed. Implementation of infection prevention and control measures should be promoted in order to avoid HAI. The empiric antibiotic therapy should cover the spectrum of organism responsible of neonatal sepsis in our study area.

Limitations of the study

Since this was a hospital-based study, neonates with related signs and symptoms of sepsis who were not brought to the hospital could have been missed. The short time period of study and a small sample size could have introduced a selection bias. There is also a lack of long term follow up. A larger scale prospective study with adjustment of factors has to be done.

Abbreviations

OR: 

odds ratio

APGAR: 

appearance pulse grimace activity respiration

CI: 

confidence interval

CoNS: 

coagulase negative Staphylococci

DHS: 

Demographic Health Survey

DRC: 

Democratic Republic of the Congo

IPSC: 

International Paediatric Sepsis Consensus Criteria

MDG: 

Millennium Development Goal

PROM: 

premature rupture of membrane

Declarations

Acknowledgements

Authors are thankful to all the people who helped during data collection and laboratory work.

Funding

This study has been funded by the Else-Kröner-Fresenius Stiftung via the German registered NGO förderverein UNIKIN (fUNIKIN) (http://www.foerderverein-uni-kinshasa.de). GKB has benefited from these funds through the BEBUC scholarship system. The funding body covered all costs related to data collection but had any rule in study design, analysis, interpretation of data and in writing the manuscript.

Authors’ contributions

The author GKB conceived the study, designed the study, collected and analysed the data and drafted the manuscript. The author YAS coordinated the study and revised the manuscript for critically important intellectual content. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Ethical clearance was obtained from the Ethical Committee of North-Kivu (Decision No 011-18/08/2018, Protocol No 005/TEN/2018). Permission was also sorted from the hospital administration of the respective hospitals. A written informed consent was obtained from the neonates’ mothers before participation in the study.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

Authors’ Affiliations

(1)
Department of Infectious Diseases, Faculty of Medicine, Université Catholique du Graben, PO.Box 29, Butembo, North-Kivu, Democratic Republic of the Congo
(2)
Department of Clinical Microbiology, School of Medical Sciences, College of Medicine, Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and Technology, Kumasi, Ghana

References

  1. Lawn JE, Cousens S, Zupan J. 4 million neonatal deaths, when? where? why? Lancet. 2005;365:891–900.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  2. UNICEF. Maternal and newborn disparities, Democratic Republic of Congo. Key facts. 2015.Google Scholar
  3. Khalid N. Neonatal infection. In: McIntosh N, Helms P, Smyth R, editors. Forfar and Arneil textbook of pediatrics. 6th ed. Philadelphia: Churchill Livingston; 2003. p. 336–43.Google Scholar
  4. Shrestha S, Shrestha NC, Dongol Singh S, Shrestha RPB, Kayestha S, Shrestha M, Thakur NK. Bacterial isolates and its antibiotics susceptibility in NICU. Kathmandu Univ med J. 2013;41(1):66–70.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  5. Nayak S, Rai R, Kumar VK, Sanjeev H, Pai A, Ganesh HR. Distribution of microorganisms in neonatal sepsis and antimicrobial susceptibility patterns in a tertiary care hospital. Arch Med Health Sci. 2014;2:136–9.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  6. Tewabe T, Mohammed S, Tilahun Y, Melaku B, Fenta M, et al. Clinical outcome and risk factors of neonatal sepsis among neonates in Felege Hiwot referral hospital, Bahir Dar, Amhara Regional State, North West Ethiopia 2016: a retrospective chart review. BMC Res Notes. 2017;10:265.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  7. Finer N. Neonatal sepsis. San Diego J Pediatr Neonatol. 2003;15(5):855–67.Google Scholar
  8. Singer M, Deutschman CS, Seymour CW, Shankar-Hari M, Annane D, et al. The third international consensus definitions for sepsis and septic shock (sepsis-3). JAMA. 2016;315:801–10.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  9. Goldstein B, Giroir B, Randolph A. International pediatric sepsis consensus conference: definitions for sepsis and organ dysfunction in pediatrics. Pediatr Crit Care Med. 2005;6:2–8.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  10. WHO-MCEE estimates for child causes of death, 2000–2015. http://www.who.int/healthinfo/global_burden_disease/en/. Accessed 8 Mar 2016.
  11. Winn WC, Allen SD, Janda WN, Koneman E, Procop G, Schreckenberger P, Woods G. Koneman’s color atlas and textbook of diagnostic microbiology. 6th ed. Philadelphia: Lippincott; 2006.Google Scholar
  12. Mhada TV, Frederick F, Matee MI, Massawe A. Neonatal sepsis at Muhimbili National Hospital, Dar es Salaam, Tanzania; aetiology, antimicrobial sensitivity pattern and clinical outcome. BMC Public Health. 2012;12:904.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  13. Yadav NS, Sharma S, Chaudhary DK, Panthi P, Pokhrel P, Shrestha A, et al. Bacteriological profile of neonatal sepsis and antibiotic susceptibility pattern of isolates admitted at Kanti Children’s Hospital, Kathmandu, Nepal. BMC Res Notes. 2018;11:301.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  14. Kayenge N, Kamugisha E, Mwizamholya DL, Jeremiah S, Mshana SE. Predictors of positive blood culture and deaths among neonates with suspected neonatal sepsis in a tertiary hospital, Mwanza-Tanzania. BMC Pediatr. 2010;10:39.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  15. Moore KL, Kainer MA, Badrawi N, Afifi S, Wasfy M, Bashir M, et al. Neonatal sepsis in Egypt associated with bacterial contamination of glucose-containing intravenous fluids. Pediatr Infect Dis J. 2005;24(7):590–4.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  16. Shrestha RK, Rai SK, Khanal LK, Mandal PK. Bacteriological study of neonatal sepsis and antibiotic susceptibility pattern of isolates in Kathmandu, Nepal. Nepal Med Coll J. 2013;15(1):71–3.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Bhat RY, Lewis LES, Vandana KE. Bacterial isolates of early-onset neonatal sepsis and their antibiotic susceptibility pattern between 1998 and 2004: an audit from a center in India. Italian J Pediatr. 2011;37:32.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  18. Kuruvilla KA, Pillai S, Jesudason M, Jana AK. Bacterial profile of sepsis in a neonatal unit in south India. Indian Pediatr. 1998;35:851–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Aurangzeb B, Hameed A. Neonatal sepsis in hospital-born babies: bacterial isolates and antibiotic susceptibility patterns. J Coll Physicians Surg Pak. 2003;13:629–32.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Gebrehiwot A, Lakew W, Moges F, Moges B, Anagaw B, Yismaw G, Nega T, Unakal C, Kassu A. Bacterial profile and drug susceptibility pattern of neonatal sepsis in Gondar University Hospital, Gondar northwest Ethiopia. Der Pharmacia Lettre. 2012;4(6):1811–6.Google Scholar
  21. Mohsen L, Ramy N, Saied D, Akmal D, Salama N, Haleim MMA, et al. Emerging antimicrobial resistance in early and late-onset neonatal sepsis. Antimicrob Resist Infect Control. 2017;6:63.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  22. Motara F, Ballot DE, Perovic O. Epidemiology of neonatal sepsis at Johannesburg hospital. S Afr J Epidemiol Infect. 2005;20(3):90–3.Google Scholar
  23. Tröger B, Göpel W, Faust K, Müller T, Jorch G, Felderhoff-Müsser U, et al. Risk for late-onset blood-culture proven sepsis in very-low-birth-weight infants born small for gestational age: a large multicenter study from the German Neonatal Network. Pediatr Infect Dis J. 2014;33:238–43.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  24. Tsai MH, Hsu JF, Chu SM, Lien R, Huang HR, Chiang MC, et al. Incidence, clinical characteristics, and risk factors for adverse outcome in neonates with late-onset sepsis. Pediatr Infect Dis J. 2014;33:e7–13.View ArticleGoogle Scholar

Copyright

© The Author(s) 2019

Advertisement