Biochemical surveillance versus clinical observation of term infants born after prolonged rupture of membranes – A quality assurance initiative

Abstract

Aim To examine whether biochemical surveillance vs clinical observation of term infants with prolonged rupture of membranes as a risk factor for early-onset sepsis is associated with differences in patient trajectories in maternity and neonatal intensive care units. Methods A retrospective study of live-born infants with gestational age ≥ 37 + 0 weeks born after prolonged rupture of membranes (≥24 h) in four Norwegian hospitals 2017–2019. Two hospitals used biochemical surveillance, and two used predominantly clinical observation to identify early-onset sepsis cases. Results The biochemical surveillance hospitals had more C-reactive protein measurements (p < 0.001), neonatal intensive care unit admissions (p < 0.001) and antibiotic treatment (p < 0.001). Hospitals using predominantly clinical observation initiated antibiotic treatment earlier in infants with suspected early-onset sepsis (p = 0.04) but not in infants fulfilling early-onset sepsis diagnostic criteria (p = 0.09). There was no difference in antibiotic treatment duration (p = 0.59), fraction of infants fulfilling early-onset sepsis diagnostic criteria (p = 0.49) or length of hospitalisation (p = 0.30), and no early-onset sepsis-related adverse outcomes. Conclusion The biochemical surveillance hospitals had more C-reactive protein measurements, but there was no difference in antibiotic treatment duration, early-onset sepsis cases, length of hospitalisation or adverse outcomes. Personnel resources needed for clinical surveillance should be weighed against the limitation of potentially painful procedures.