Use of score and cerebrospinal fluid lactate dosage in differential diagnosis of bacterial and aseptic meningitis

4Citations
Citations of this article
13Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.
Get full text

Abstract

Objective: To evaluate Bacterial Meningitis Score (BMS) on its own and in association with Cerebrospinal Fluid (CSF) lactate dosage in order to distinguish bacterial from aseptic meningitis. Methods: Children diagnosed with meningitis at a tertiary hospital between January/2011 and December/2014 were selected. All data were obtained upon admission. BMS was applied and included: CSF Gram staining (2 points); CSF neutrophil count ≥1,000 cells/mm3 (1 point); CSF protein ≥80 mg/dL (1 point); peripheral blood neutrophil count ≥10,000 cells/mm3 (1 point) and seizures upon/before arrival (1 point). Cutoff value for CSF lactate was ≥30 mg/dL. Sensitivity, specificity and negative predictive value of several BMS cutoffs and BMS associated with high CSF lactate were evaluated for prediction of bacterial meningitis. Results: Among 439 eligible patients, 94 did not have all data available to complete the score, and 345 patients were included: 7 in bacterial meningitis group and 338 in aseptic meningitis group. As predictive factors of bacterial meningitis, BMS ≥1 had 100% sensitivity (95%CI 47.3.100), 64.2% specificity (58.8.100) and 100% negative predictive value (97.5.100); BMS ≥2 or BMS ≥1 associated with high CSF lactate also showed 100% sensitivity (47.3.100); but 98.5% specificity (96.6.99.5) and 100% negative predictive value (98.3.100). Conclusions: 2 point BMS in association with CSF lactate dosage had the same sensitivity and negative predictive value, with increased specificity for diagnosis of bacterial meningitis when compared with 1-point BMS.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Pires, F. R., Franco, A. C. B. F., Gilio, A. E., & Troster, E. J. (2017). Use of score and cerebrospinal fluid lactate dosage in differential diagnosis of bacterial and aseptic meningitis. Revista Paulista de Pediatria, 35(4), 369–374. https://doi.org/10.1590/1984-0462/;2017;35;4;00010

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free