Article Text

Download PDFPDF
Letters
Pertussis encephalopathy in an infant
  1. Lit Kim Chin1,
  2. David Burgner1,2,
  3. Jim Buttery1,2,3,
  4. Penelope A Bryant1,4
  1. 1Department of Paediatric Infectious Diseases, Monash Children's, Monash Medical Centre, Clayton, Victoria, Australia
  2. 2Murdoch Children's Research Institute, Royal Children's Hospital, Parkville, Victoria, Australia
  3. 3Department of Paediatrics, Monash University, Clayton, Victoria, Australia
  4. 4Paediatric Infectious Diseases Unit, Department of General Medicine, The Royal Children's Hospital, Parkville, Victoria, Australia
  1. Correspondence to Dr Penelope A Bryant, Paediatric Infectious Diseases Unit, Monash Children's, Monash Medical Centre, Clayton Road, Clayton, Victoria 3168, Australia; penelope.bryant{at}rch.org.au

Statistics from Altmetric.com

Request Permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

An 8-week-old male infant presented with seizures (abnormal eye movements and posturing). Two weeks previously, he presented with a cough diagnosed as pertussis by nasopharyngeal aspirate PCR, and he received oral erythromycin for 7 days. Neither he nor his parents had received recent pertussis immunisation. At this presentation, nasopharyngeal aspirate PCR remained positive for Bordetella pertussis and was negative for other viruses including influenza. Additional investigations showed a lymphocytosis 18.2×109/l, normal inflammatory markers and sterile blood cultures. The cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) was acellular with normal glucose and elevated protein 1.2 g/l and was sterile on culture. CSF PCR for herpes simplex virus and enterovirus were negative. MRI of the brain showed caudate nucleus enhancement suggesting encephalitis (figure 1), a …

View Full Text

Footnotes

  • Contributors LKC looked after the patient and drafted and edited the manuscript. DB and JB looked after the patient and edited and provided helpful comments on the manuscript. PAB looked after the patient, provided major editing to the manuscript and is responsible for the overall content.

  • Competing interests None.

  • Patient consent Obtained.

  • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.