Infection in the Extremely Preterm Infant — Part 5 of 6: Prognosis — Outcomes After Neonatal Infection

A plain-language guide to survival, development, lungs, eyes and growth after infection in babies born before 28 weeks, drawn from studies of hundreds of thousands of infants

About one in five babies born before 28 weeks develops a bloodstream infection during their neonatal unit stay, and the large majority of them survive it and go home. Infection does raise the risk of dying and of later developmental difficulties, and how much it raises them depends greatly on which germ is responsible. This article explains what the biggest studies actually found, in ordinary numbers, so families can ask better questions.

Why This Question Kept Doctors Awake

Babies born three or four months early arrive without the immune defences that a full-term newborn has, with skin so thin it barely holds a barrier, and they need tubes and drips that give germs a route inside. For decades neonatal teams knew infection was common and dangerous, but had only one good set of numbers to describe what it meant. Those came from a large American research network — the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Neonatal Research Network — which followed 6,956 very small babies weighing between 401 and 1,500 grams around the year 2000. It found that 21 out of every 100 who survived their first three days developed a blood infection, that 18 out of 100 infected babies died compared with 7 out of 100 uninfected ones, and that infection added about 25 days to the hospital stay [1]. Those figures were repeated to parents for twenty years, but they left the most important questions unanswered. Does it matter which germ it is? Is an infection in the first days worse than one a month later? And how much of the extra risk is the infection itself, rather than the simple fact that the frailest babies are the ones most likely to catch something? Answering all three needed studies with hundreds of thousands of babies and follow-up clinics that check children years later — and over the past two decades, exactly those studies have been done. This article is Part 5 of a six-part In[Neo]Sight series, Infection in the Extremely Preterm Infant. It sits alongside Part 1 — Pathophysiology & Epidemiology (why these babies catch infections and how common it is), Part 2 — Pathology (what infection does to the body's tissues), Part 3 — Prevention, Part 4 — Treatment and Part 6 — Nursing Perspectives (care at the cotside). This part is about what happens afterwards. (Slugs are provisional pending human confirmation of the published Sanity slugs.)

How Common It Is, and How Many Babies Come Through

The largest recent picture comes from a project called the International Network for Evaluating Outcomes of Neonates, or iNeo — a collaboration of nine national networks covering 433 neonatal units in 10 wealthy countries. It followed 82,850 babies born between 24 and 28 weeks. About 20 out of every 100 developed a late infection, meaning one starting after the first three days of life. The younger the baby, the higher the chance: roughly 32 in 100 at 24 weeks, falling to about 13 in 100 at 28 weeks. Encouragingly, the rate fell over the years of the study, from about 25 in 100 to about 18 in 100. Among babies who had an infection, 13 in 100 died before going home, compared with 6 in 100 of those who did not — so most infected babies survived. Infection also lengthened the hospital stay by somewhere between 5 and 18 days [2]. One striking finding is how much the rates varied between countries, from about 7 in 100 in Japan to about 45 in 100 in Spain, which tells us these infections are not simply inevitable.

A very large American collaboration of hospitals, the Vermont Oxford Network, examined 118,650 very premature babies in 774 hospitals across 49 states. Around 9 in 100 developed a late infection, and about 78 out of 100 of those babies survived, compared with about 95 out of 100 of babies who never got infected [3]. The same network looked separately at infections that appear in the first three days of life, which are much rarer — about 13 babies in every 1,000 — and usually caused by germs picked up around birth [4]. There is one important subtlety here. Among the very smallest babies, born before 24 weeks, the figures can look upside down, with uninfected babies appearing to do worse. That is not because infection helps. It is because the most fragile babies sometimes die in the first days, before an infection has had time to be diagnosed at all.

The Germ Matters More Than the Word "Infection"

This is perhaps the single most useful thing for a family to know. A German study covering 62 hospitals and 12,823 extremely premature babies counted how many died with each different germ. With one particular bacterium, Pseudomonas aeruginosa, half the babies who caught it died — 8 out of 16. With a yeast called Candida albicans, about 24 in 100 died. With E. coli or Klebsiella, about 11 in 100. With group B Streptococcus, about 9 in 100. And with a common skin bacterium, Staphylococcus haemolyticus, about 5 in 100 [5]. Most infections in these babies are caused by ordinary skin bacteria that live harmlessly on all of us and cause the least dangerous form of infection. So "your baby has an infection" covers an enormous range, from something usually recoverable to something very serious, and it is entirely reasonable to ask the team which germ has been found and what that particular one means. Timing matters too: in a study of 941 extremely premature babies enrolled in the Preterm Erythropoietin Neuroprotection Trial (PENUT) at 19 sites and 30 neonatal units across 13 American states, infections appearing in the first three days were not linked to a higher chance of dying, whereas later infections were [6].

Meningitis: Rare, but the One Doctors Look Hardest For

Meningitis means infection of the fluid around the brain and spinal cord. In 13,372 babies born between 22 and 26 weeks at 25 American centres, it happened in about 1 in 100 — uncommon, but with the most serious outlook of any infection studied. Among babies whose meningitis was caused by ordinary skin bacteria, 48 in 100 either died or had a developmental difficulty by age two; with other bacteria, 64 in 100; and with a yeast infection, 79 in 100 [7]. The study also found something that matters for care: in about 16 out of every 100 cases the blood test was negative, and the meningitis was found only by testing the fluid around the spine with a lumbar puncture. That is why teams sometimes want to do this test even when a baby already has an infection diagnosed in the blood.

Development, Lungs, Eyes and Growth

Parents rightly want to know what infection means for their child years later. Careful reviews pooling many studies give reassuring perspective. One combined 24 studies covering 121,645 children and found that after newborn infection the odds of a cognitive delay were raised only slightly, while the odds of vision problems and of cerebral palsy were raised more clearly [8]. Another review of premature babies found a roughly three-fold increase in the odds of impairment overall, but the studies disagreed considerably with one another, and the handful that measured development as a score rather than a yes-or-no label found no significant difference at all [9]. Put plainly: infection shifts the odds, but it does not decide the outcome, and many infected babies develop entirely typically.

Yeast infections are the exception that deserves separate mention. In 8,408 Canadian babies born before 29 weeks, only about 1 in 100 had one — but among those who did, 44 in 100 had a significant developmental difficulty at 18 to 30 months, compared with 22 in 100 after a bacterial infection and 15 in 100 with no infection, and half of them died [10]. These infections are hard to detect, which is why doctors sometimes start antifungal treatment before tests confirm anything: in one group of babies with confirmed yeast infection of the brain, only about a third had it show up in a blood test [11].

Infection also leaves traces in the lungs, eyes and growth chart. A nationwide Korean study of 1,434 of the smallest babies found that those who had a late infection were more likely to develop chronic lung disease and to need oxygen at home, with the risk rising for each additional infection [12]. For the eyes, a Chinese study of 14,670 premature babies in 70 units found that infection was somewhat more common among babies who developed serious eye disease, though how early the baby was born remained by far the biggest factor [13]. Growth is where the effect is clearest and most fixable. In a study across 29 centres in the United States and Canada, 693 babies with infection were compared with closely matched babies without. Poor weight gain occurred in 34 out of 100 infected babies compared with 26 out of 100 of the others — and, importantly, the gap did not appear during the illness itself but roughly three weeks afterwards, when feeding took longer to get going again [14]. Think of it like recovering from a bad bout of flu: the weight is lost not on the worst day, but during the slow weeks of getting back to normal eating. That is why teams pay such close attention to feeding and nutrition after an infection has cleared.

What Researchers Are Working On Next

Three directions matter most. The first is catching infection earlier. Monitors that watch for subtle changes in a baby's heart rate were tested in a randomised trial of Heart Rate Observation (HeRO) monitoring across nine American neonatal units; among babies who did develop an infection, fewer died in the following month when the monitor's display was switched on [15]. Newer computer models that read heart and breathing patterns together can flag trouble up to about a day before a blood test turns positive, although they have not yet been shown to change what happens to babies [16]. The second is using antibiotics more carefully. A hospital in Dallas, Texas, showed that a stewardship programme — a set of rules that stops antibiotics automatically once they are no longer needed — cut antibiotic use by more than a quarter with no harm to babies [17] — important, because antibiotics disturb the community of helpful bacteria growing in a baby's gut. The third is better follow-up: no study has yet reported how many developmental points, if any, a child loses after infection, and until researchers publish that, honest answers about the long term have to stay in terms of probabilities rather than certainties. If your baby has had an infection, the most useful things you can do are to ask which germ was found, ask whether a lumbar puncture is needed, and stay closely involved in feeding and growth in the weeks that follow.

References

  1. Stoll BJ, Hansen N, Fanaroff AA, et al. Late-onset sepsis in very low birth weight neonates: the experience of the NICHD Neonatal Research Network. Pediatrics. 2002;110(2):285–291. doi:10.1542/peds.110.2.285 ↩
  2. Klinger G, Reichman B, Norman M, et al.; on behalf of the International Network for Evaluating Outcomes of Neonates (iNeo). Late-onset sepsis among extremely preterm infants of 24–28 weeks gestation: an international comparison in 10 high-income countries. Neonatology. 2024;121(6):761–771. doi:10.1159/000539245 ↩
  3. Flannery DD, Edwards EM, Coggins SA, Horbar JD, Puopolo KM. Late-onset sepsis among very preterm infants. Pediatrics. 2022;150(6):e2022058813. doi:10.1542/peds.2022-058813 ↩
  4. Flannery DD, Edwards EM, Puopolo KM, Horbar JD. Early-onset sepsis among very preterm infants. Pediatrics. 2021;148(4):e2021052456. doi:10.1542/peds.2021-052456 ↩
  5. Göpel W, et al. Sepsis related mortality of extremely low gestational age newborns after the introduction of colonization screening for multi-drug resistant organisms. Antimicrob Resist Infect Control. 2020;9(1):144. doi:10.1186/s13756-020-00804-8 ↩
  6. Perez K, Puia-Dumitrescu M, Comstock BA, et al.; on behalf of the PENUT Consortium. Patterns of infections among extremely preterm infants. J Clin Med. 2023;12(7):2703. doi:10.3390/jcm12072703 ↩
  7. Brumbaugh JE, Bell EF, Do BT, et al.; Eunice Kennedy Shriver NICHD Neonatal Research Network. Incidence of and neurodevelopmental outcomes after late-onset meningitis among children born extremely preterm. JAMA Netw Open. 2022;5(12):e2245826. doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2022.45826 ↩
  8. Ong WJ, Seng JJB, Yap B, et al. Impact of neonatal sepsis on neurocognitive outcomes: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC Pediatr. 2024;24(1):505. doi:10.1186/s12887-024-04977-8 ↩
  9. Cai S, Thompson DK, Anderson PJ, Yang JY-M. Short- and long-term neurodevelopmental outcomes of very preterm infants with neonatal sepsis: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Children. 2019;6(12):131. doi:10.3390/children6120131 ↩
  10. Zhou Q, Kelly E, Luu TM, et al. Fungal infection and neurodevelopmental outcomes at 18–30 months in preterm infants. Front Pediatr. 2023;11:1145252. doi:10.3389/fped.2023.1145252 ↩
  11. Daniel K, Greenberg RG, Boutzoukas A, Katakam L. Updated perspectives on the diagnosis and management of neonatal invasive candidiasis. Res Rep Neonatol. 2023;13:45–63. doi:10.2147/RRN.S409779 ↩
  12. Lee BS, et al. Late-onset sepsis as a risk factor for bronchopulmonary dysplasia in extremely low birth weight infants: a nationwide cohort study. Sci Rep. 2019;9(1):15448. doi:10.1038/s41598-019-51617-8 ↩
  13. Chen X, Xu Y, Wang Y, Du J, Xu F, et al.; for the Chinese Neonatal Network. Incidence, risk factors and evolving treatment of severe retinopathy of prematurity in China: a retrospective multicenter cohort study in 70 neonatal intensive care units. Front Med. 2025;12:1652727. doi:10.3389/fmed.2025.1652727 ↩
  14. Flannery DD, Jensen EA, Tomlinson LA, Yu Y, Ying G-S, Binenbaum G; G-ROP Study Group. Poor postnatal weight growth is a late finding after sepsis in very preterm infants. Arch Dis Child Fetal Neonatal Ed. 2021;106(3):F298–F305. doi:10.1136/archdischild-2020-320221 ↩
  15. Moorman JR, Carlo WA, Kattwinkel J, et al. Mortality reduction by heart rate characteristic monitoring in very low birth weight neonates: a randomized trial. J Pediatr. 2011;159(6):900–906.e1. doi:10.1016/j.jpeds.2011.06.044 ↩
  16. Kausch SL, Brandberg JG, Qiu J, et al. Cardiorespiratory signature of neonatal sepsis: development and validation of prediction models in 3 NICUs. Pediatr Res. 2023;93(7):1913–1921. doi:10.1038/s41390-022-02444-7 ↩
  17. Cantey JB, Wozniak PS, Pruszynski JE, Sánchez PJ. Reducing unnecessary antibiotic use in the neonatal intensive care unit (SCOUT): a prospective interrupted time-series study. Lancet Infect Dis. 2016;16(10):1178–1184. doi:10.1016/S1473-3099(16)30205-530205-5) ↩