Abstract

No single or combined tests with a high sensitivity and specificity have been found helpful in the early, rapid and correct diagnosis of neonatal sepsis to date. The aim of this study was to evaluate the value of E-selectin as an early indicator and follow-up parameter in late neonatal sepsis. We also wanted to compare its diagnostic efficacy to C-reactive protein (CRP), which is commonly used as a diagnostic criteria. This study was carried out in the Neonatology Department of Akdeniz University Medical School. Forty-four infants (16 term and 28 preterm) with sepsis were enrolled in the study. Out of these 44 newborns, 24 had positive blood cultures and 20 had clinical sepsis. The day on which the clinical findings of sepsis were observed was accepted as day 1. Venous blood samples of the infants were drawn on days 1, 3 and 5. Each infant had a gestational and postnatal age-matched healthy control. C-reactive protein and E-selectin levels were measured in these blood samples. Compared to the control group, CRP levels were higher in the infants with sepsis (p<0.05) and decreased on days 3 and 5. No significant difference was observed between CRP levels of term and preterm infants (p>0.05). There was no significant difference in the E-selectin levels either between term and preterm infants, or between infants with sepsis and control groups (p>0.05). Although E-selectin levels decreased on days 3 and 5, no significant difference was detected between the days. In conclusion, E-selectin seams to not be helpful in the initial diagnosis and follow-up of late neonatal sepsis, but more studies with a larger number of patients are necessary in order to confirm this suggestion.

Keywords: neonatal sepsis, C-reactive protein, E-selectin, yenidoğan, sepsis, C-reaktif protein, E-selektin.

How to Cite

1.
Güra A, Oygür N, Ongun H, Saka O, Yeğin O. E-selectin as an early indicator and follow-up parameter in late neonatal sepsis. Çocuk Sağlığı ve Hastalıkları Dergisi 2003; 46: 261-6. Available from: https://cshd.org.tr/article/view/643