A COMPARISON OF THE DIAGNOSTIC VALUE OF PROCALCITONIN (PCT) AND C-REACTIVE PROTEIN (CRP) IN THE DIAGNOSIS OF NEONATAL SEPSIS – A HOSPITAL-BASED CROSS-SECTIONAL STUDY

Main Article Content

Dr Ayesha Tahir
Dr Syed Arsalan Hassan
Dr Fiazan Haider
Dr Mariam Saeed
Dr Ashvinah Qayyum

Abstract

Background:


 Neonatal sepsis is a leading cause of mortality worldwide, with a high prevalence in low- and middle-income countries. Early diagnosis and timely intervention are crucial for improving outcomes. Procalcitonin (PCT) and C-reactive protein (CRP) are biomarkers used for diagnosing neonatal sepsis, but their diagnostic accuracy is not fully known.


Objective:


To compare the diagnostic performance of PCT and CRP in diagnosing neonatal sepsis, using blood culture as the gold standard.


Study Design:


 Cross-sectional


Place and duration of study:


Neonatal Intensive Care Unit, Combined Military Hospital Lahore, from January 2024 to July 2024.


Patients and Methods:


This study enrolled 126 neonates up to 28 days of age with suspected sepsis. Patients with congenital malformations were excluded. PCT and CRP levels were measured, and blood cultures were performed. The diagnostic parameters of PCT and CRP were calculated and compared.


Results:


PCT had a higher sensitivity (84.4%) and specificity (82.7%) compared to CRP (66.6% and 50.6%, respectively) in diagnosing neonatal sepsis. The positive predictive value of PCT was also higher than CRP (73.1% vs 42.8%). The most common pathogens isolated were Klebsiella, Pseudomonas, E. Coli and Candida.


Conclusion:


This study suggests that PCT may be a more sensitive and accurate marker for early diagnosis of neonatal sepsis compared to CRP.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Article Details

Section

Articles

How to Cite

A COMPARISON OF THE DIAGNOSTIC VALUE OF PROCALCITONIN (PCT) AND C-REACTIVE PROTEIN (CRP) IN THE DIAGNOSIS OF NEONATAL SEPSIS – A HOSPITAL-BASED CROSS-SECTIONAL STUDY. (2025). The Research of Medical Science Review, 3(3), 1474-1480. https://medicalsciencereview.com/index.php/Journal/article/view/2864