TABLE 2

Reasons for EOS Evaluation of Well-Appearing Infants

CDC2002, n = 920CDC2010, n = 476P Valuea
No maternal fever, n (% of total evaluated)272 (29.6)32 (6.7)<.001
Inadequate IAP alone234 (25.4)2 (<1)b<.001
 Inadequate IAP plus other risk factorsc16 (1.7)15 (3.2).12
 Other indications22 (2.4)15 (3.2).48
Maternal fever, n (% of total evaluated)648 (70.4)444 (93.3)<.001
 >101°F331 (35.9)216 (45.4)<.001
 100.4–100.9°F317 (34.5)228 (47.9)<.001
ROM >18 h182 (19.8)124 (26.1).01
GA <37 wk34 (3.7)15 (3.2).65
  • a The P values refer to the difference in the proportion attributable to each reason for EOS evaluation among the total number of infants evaluated, comparing the 2 study periods.

  • b In the CDC2010 cohort, 2 were infants evaluated for inadequate GBS alone, due to failure of compliance with the algorithm.

  • c In the CDC2002 cohort, other risk factors were ROM >18 h (1) and GA <37 wk (15). In the CDC 2010 cohort, other risk factors were ROM >18 h (8), fetal tachycardia (4), maternal fever of 100.3°F (2), and previous sibling with GBS sepsis (1).