Ochoa-Retes JA, Martínez-Félix NS, Peraza-Garay FJ, De la Mora-Fernández AR

Language: Spanish
References: 24
Page: 192-201
PDF size: 99.09 Kb.

ABSTRACT

Objective: To determine the frequency of ototoxicity with the use of aminoglycosides in newborns with a diagnosis of early bacterial sepsis. Material and methods: Observational, prevalence, descriptive, prospective study. All those newborns (NBs) hospitalized in the area of neonatology that were managed with aminoglycoside-based antibiotic scheme were included because they had presented bacterial sepsis and who subsequently underwent otoacoustic emissions (EO) to determine the frequency of hearing loss in the period from January 1 to December 31, 2018. Results: 162 RN were studied, of which 2 were eliminated because they did not meet the study criteria. EO was performed and examined by pediatric otolaryngology. 18 studies were negative (they did not pass the TA test), in total 10 were discarded in the second test and 8 referred to evoked potentials (PE). Finally, 100% rule out hearing loss or deafness. Secondary variables were studied; the ones with the greatest impact were mechanical ventilation and prematurity; 72.2% (95% CI 46.5, 90.3) were premature while 66.6% (41.0, 86.7) required mechanical ventilation of the total number of patients with abnormalities in the EO. Conclusions: The determination of cochlear and vestibular disorder by means of EOs is a non-invasive, reliable, easy to perform method. According to our results, there was NO hearing loss in this population with this risk factor alone, so there is no evidence against the use of aminoglycosides in the NB. It is suggested to increase the number of early or extreme premature patients (less than 32 SDG) due to the impact of prematurity on otoneurological development. It is recommended to continue studying the RN with FR to give better attention and improve the sensorineural quality of the pediatric patient.

REFERENCES

1. World Health Organization. Prevention of hearingimpairment from chronic otitis media: reportof a WHO. Geneva: World Health Organization;1998.

2. Brunton LL. Goodman & Gilman: Las bases farmacológicasde la terapéutica,12a. McGraw HillMexico; 2012.

3. Rodríguez S, García D, Coro RM, Gaya JA, HarveyY, Matos M, et al. Efectos ototóxicos de losantibióticos aminoglucósidos. Revista CENIC.Ciencias Biol. 2010;41:1-9.

4. Taketomo CK, Hodding JH, Kraus DM, SoberanisCP, Ortiz ML. Manual de prescripción pediátrica:incluye, prescripción neonatal, administraciónmedicamentosa y preparados magistrales.14Ed. ed: Intersistemas; 2007

5. Labaune J, Bleyzac N, Maire P, Jelliffe R, BoutroyM, Aulagner G, et al. Once-a-day individualizedamikacin dosing for suspected infection atbirth based on population pharmacokinetic models.Neonate. 2001;80(2):142-7.

6. Young TE, Mangum B. Manual de drogas neonatológicasNeofax. 18Ed ed: Editorial MédicaPanamericana; 2005.

7. Cross CP, Liao S, Urdang ZD, Srikanth P, GarinisAC, Steyger PS. Effect of sepsis and systemicinflammatory response syndrome on neonatalhearing screening outcomes following gentamicinexposure. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol2015, 1;79(11):1915-9.

8. McKinney W, Yonovitz A, Smolensky MH. Circadianvariation of gentamicin toxicity in rats.Laryngosc. 2015 Jul;125(7):E252-6.

9. Garinis AC, Kemph A, Tharpe AM, WeitkampJH, McEvoy C, Steyger PS. Monitoring neonatesfor ototoxicity. Int J Audiol. 2018 Aug24;57(sup4):S54-61.

10. Robles-Bello MA, Sánchez-Teruel D. Atencióninfantil temprana en España Pap del Psic.2013;34(2):132-143.

11. Lino-González AL, Castañeda-Maceda MV,Mercado-Hernández I, Arch-Tirado E. La educaciónpara la salud auditiva en México.¿ Problemade salud pública? Tamiz Auditivo NeonatalUniversal. Rev Mex Com Audiol Otoneu Fon.2015 Nov 25;4(2):65-70.

12. De Salud LG, UNICO C. Ley General de Salud.Octavo bis de los Cuidados Paliativos a los Enfermosen Situación Terminal. Capitulo II, Articulo.2012;166.

13. Lino-González AL, Castañeda-Maceda MV,Mercado-Hernández I, Arch-Tirado E. Tamiz auditivoneonatal universal en México. Sal PubMex. 2015;57:114-5.

14. Pozo M, Almenar A, Tapia MC, Moro M. Detecciónde la hipoacusia en el neonato. ProtocolosDiagnostico Terapéutico de la EAP: NeonatolRev As Esp Ped. 2008;12:29-36.

15. Carranza-Alva CA, Toral-Martiñón R, Shkurovich-Bialik P, Schabes-Rostenberg M. Resultadosdel diagnóstico temprano de sordera en reciénnacidos sin factores de riesgo. An Med AsocMed Centro Médico ABC. 2016;61(2):93-7.

16. Hrnčić N. Identification of risk factors for hearingimpairment in newborns: a hospital based study.Medicinski Glasnik. 2018 Feb 1;15(1).

17. Joint Committee on Infant Hearing. Year 2007position statement: principles and guidelines forearly hearing detection and intervention programs.Pediatrics. 2007 Oct 1;120(4):898-921.

18. Campos AC, Shirane HY, Takemoto PV, LourençoEA. Universal newborn hearing screening:knowledge of pediatricians and neonatologists inthe city of Jundiaí, São Paulo, Brazil. Braz JOtorhinolaryngol. 2014 Oct;80(5):379-85.

19. Zavala-Vargas G, García H. Hipoacusia neonatal.La magnitud de un problema que aún no esescuchado. Rev Mex Ped. 2018 Oct9;85(4):117-8.

20. Núñez-Batalla F, Jáudenes-Casaubón C, Sequí-Canet JM, Vivanco-Allende A, Zubicaray-UgartecheJ, Cabanillas-Farpón R. Diagnóstico etiológicode la sordera infantil: recomendacionesde la CODEPEH. Acta Otrl Esp. 2017 Jan1;68(1):43-55.

21. Mehl AL, Thomson V. Newborn hearing screening:the great omission. Pediat. 1998 Jan1;101(1):e4-.

22. De la Federación DO. Ley general de salud. TítuloDécimo Segundo. Control sanitario de productosy servicios de su importación y exportación.Capítulo I. Disposiciones Comunes. Artículo.1984;212

23. Poonual W, Navacharoen N, Kangsanarak J,Namwongprom S, Saokaew S. Hearing lossscreening tool (COBRA score) for newborns inprimary care setting. Korean J Pediatr. 2017 Nov1;60(11):353-8.

24. Janssen T. A review of the effectiveness of otoacousticemissions for evaluating hearing statusafter newborn screening. Otol Neurotol. 2013Aug 1;34(6):1058-63.