medigraphic.com
ISSN 0016-3813 (Print)

2001, Number 2

Next >>

Gac Med Mex 2001; 137 (2)

Congenital Rubella Syndrome in Infants at a Pediatric Hospital

Solórzano-Santos F, López-Kirwan A, Alvarez MMT, Miranda-Novales MG, Gadea-Alvarez T, Vázquez-Rosales G

Language: Spanish
References: 16
Page: 105-109
PDF size: 54.20 Kb.


ABSTRACT

Congenital rubella syndrome (CRS) has been considered an uncommon problem in Mexico. Objective: To analyze and describe clinical features of CRS cases in infants from a pediatric hospital in Mexico City during an 8 year period. Material and methods: Design: retrospective study. Patients younger than 18 months of age with a positive serologic test for IgG and IgM rubella antibodies were included. Antibodies were measured by an immunoenzymatic miocroparticles assay. Results: Fifty-six cases were identified, 42 complete clinical records were available for review. Of these, 23 (54.7%) were female and 19 (45.3%) male. Median for age was five months. A total of 9/42 mothers (21%) had history of rash during pregnancy. IgM antibodies were detected in 15 infants and IgG in 27. Major manifestations were ocular (74%), neurologic (66%), and congenital heart disease (67%). Congenital cataracts were detected in 69%, in 52% hepatomegaly, in 43% jaundice, in 40% anemia, in 48% thrombocytopenia, and hearing loss 19%. Conclusion: Five confirmed cases with CRS per year in one hospital indicate a high frequency. Only a small percentage of women had a history of rash during pregnancy. CRS must be investigated in infants with ocular, neurologic, and congenital heart diseases.


REFERENCES

  1. Andrewes CH. Generic names of viruses of vertebrates. Virology 1976;40:1070-1074.

  2. Gregg NM. Congenital cataract following German measles in the mother. Trans Ophtalmol Soc Aust 1941;3:35-37

  3. Horstmann DM. Rubella: the challenge of its control. J Infect Dis. 1971;123:640-654.

  4. Gutiérrez G, Ruíz Gómez J, Velazco CL, Brugguemann C. Investigación de anticuerpos antirrubéola en población infantil y en mujeres adultas de la ciudad de México. Arch Invest Med 1970;1:63-70.

  5. Gutiérrez G, Muñoz O, Tapia CR, Bustamante CME, Alvarez MMT, Guiscafré GJP, Magos C, Sepúlveda AJ. Seroepidemiología de la rubéola en mujeres mexicanas. Encuesta nacional probabilística. Salud Pub Mex 1990;32:623-631.

  6. Figueroa DR, Ortiz IFJ, Arredondo M, Ahued AJR. Resultados de los embarazos complicados con rubéola, 1990-1997. Salud Publica Mex 1999;41:271-277.

  7. Sánchez E, Torres R. Rubéola y embarazo. Resultados perinatales. Ginecol Obstet Mex. 1992;60:141-145.

  8. Lee SM Ewert DP, Frederick PD, Mascola L. Resurgence of congenital rubella syndrome in the 1990s. Report on missed opportunities and failed prevention policies among women of childbearing age. JAMA 1992; 267:2616-2620.

  9. Cooper LZ, Preblud SR, Alford CA. Rubella. In: Remington JS, Klein JO, editors. Infectious diseases of the fetus and newborn infant. 4th ed. WB Saunders Co; Philadelphia PA, USA: 1995. p. 268-311.

  10. Forrest JM, Menser MA. Congenital rubella in schoolchildren and adolescents. Arch Dis Child 1970;45:63-69.

  11. Schiff GM, Sutherland JM, Light IJ, Bloom JE. Studies in congenital rubella . Am J Dis Child 1905;110:441-446.

  12. Peckham CS. Clinical and laboratory study of children exposed in uterus to maternal rubella. Arch Dis Child 1972;47:571-577.

  13. Munro ND, Shepard S, Smithells RW, Holzel R, Jone G. Temporal relations between maternal rubella and congenital defects. Lancet 1987;ii:201-204.

  14. Enders G, Nickerl-Pacher U, Miller E, Cradock-Watson JE. Outcome of confirmed periconceptional maternal rubella. Lancet 19981;i:1445-1447.

  15. Rubéola y el síndrome de rubéola congénita en Estados Unidos. Boletín Informativo PAI 1997;19:2-3.

  16. La carga de rubéola y el SRC para la salud pública. Boletín Informativo PAI 1998;20:2-3.




2020     |     www.medigraphic.com