Article

Cerebrospinal Fluid Reference Ranges in Term and Preterm Infants in the Neonatal Intensive Care Unit

Department of Pediatrics, The Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, Philadelphia, PA. Electronic address: .
The Journal of pediatrics (Impact Factor: 3.74). 05/2012; 161(4):729-34. DOI: 10.1016/j.jpeds.2012.03.051
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT To determine reference ranges of cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) laboratory findings in term and preterm infants in the neonatal intensive care unit.
Data were collected prospectively as part of a multisite study of infants aged <6 months undergoing lumbar puncture for evaluation of suspected sepsis. Infants with a red blood cell count >500 cells/μL or a known cause of CSF pleocytosis were excluded from the analysis.
A total of 318 infants met the inclusion criteria. Of these, 148 infants (47%) were preterm, and 229 (72%) received antibiotics before undergoing lumbar puncture. The upper reference limit of the CSF white blood cell (WBC) count was 12 cells/μL in preterm infants and 14 cells/μL in term infants. CSF protein levels were significantly higher in preterm infants (upper reference limit, 209 mg/dL vs 159 mg/dL in term infants; P < .001), and declined with advancing postnatal age in both groups (preterm, P = .008; term, P < .001). CSF glucose levels did not differ in term and preterm infants. Antibiotic exposure did not significantly affect CSF WBC, protein, or glucose values.
CSF WBC counts are not significantly different in preterm and term infants. CSF protein levels are higher and decline more slowly with postnatal age in preterm infants compared with term infants. This study provides CSF reference ranges for hospitalized preterm and term infants, particularly in the first month of life.

2 Followers
 · 
316 Views
  • Source
    Clinical Biochemistry 09/2011; 44(13):S7–S8. DOI:10.1016/j.clinbiochem.2011.08.023 · 2.23 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Traumatic lumbar punctures occur frequently in the neonatal intensive care unit, making the interpretation of cerebrospinal fluid values difficult. We report correction factors for cerebrospinal fluid protein and white blood cells in the face of red blood cell contamination. These correction factors should facilitate the diagnosis of bacterial meningitis in high risk hospitalized infants.
    The Pediatric Infectious Disease Journal 04/2013; 32(10). DOI:10.1097/INF.0b013e31829862b7 · 3.14 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Abstract The Referee: Dr Uttam Garg, Department of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, Kansas City School of Medicine, University of MO, Children's Mercy Hospitals and Clinics, Kansas City, MO, USA clinical laboratory plays a critical role in healthcare delivery by providing objective data on specific biomarkers that directly aid in the diagnosis and monitoring of a wide range of clinical disorders. Reliable and accurate reference intervals for laboratory analyses are integral for correct interpretation of clinical laboratory test results and, therefore, for appropriate clinical decision-making. Ideally, reference intervals should be established based on a healthy population and stratified for key covariates including age, gender and ethnicity. However, establishing reference intervals can be challenging as it requires the collection of large numbers of samples from healthy individuals. This challenge is further augmented in pediatrics, where dynamic changes due to child growth and development markedly affect circulating levels of disease biomarkers. As a result, even larger reference populations are required to reliably calculate reference intervals. In this review, we outline the challenges specific to establishing pediatric reference intervals and highlight recent initiatives aimed at closing existing gaps in current knowledge. We also outline recommended approaches to the development of reference intervals and detail several alternative approaches. Finally, reference intervals for emerging and novel biomarkers of pediatric disease are discussed along with a number of potential alternative sample types.
    Critical Reviews in Clinical Laboratory Sciences 05/2013; DOI:10.3109/10408363.2013.786673 · 7.00 Impact Factor