Professional Documents
Culture Documents
ImamJApplSci4257-3049877 082818 PDF
ImamJApplSci4257-3049877 082818 PDF
185]
Original Article
Abstract Aims and Objectives: The aim is to study the prevalence of hypocalcemia, its correlation with duration of
phototherapy and its persistence in health new‑borns after intensive phototherapy.
Materials and Methods: A prospective hospital‑based observation study was conducted on 380 newborns
who received intensive phototherapy in Neonatal intensive care unit (NICU). Pre, post, and at the 10th day
after phototherapy calcium levels were estimated in the study neonates. Neonates were observed for
clinical manifestations of hypocalcemia during phototherapy treatment and up to 10 days after discharge
from hospital. All the data were collected and analyzed for statistical significances in relevant software.
Results and Observations: Prevalence of hypocalcemia in this study was 12.63%. Only two infants
developed symptomatic hypocalcemia. Statistically significant (P < 0.001) decrease in calcium levels
were recorded between pre‑ and post‑phototherapy. However, there was no statistical change in
calcium levels when prehototherapy and at the 10 th day after phototherapy calcium levels were
compared and no baby developed clinical manifestations of hypocalcemia during observation for
10 days. Thus, phototherapy‑induced hypocalcemia is short lived without any long‑term effect. Duration
of phototherapy has negative but not significant correlation with phototherapy‑induced change in
calcium levels.
Conclusion: To conclude, there occurs significant asymptomatic phototherapy‑induced hypocalcemia,
correlation of this hypocalcemia with duration of phototherapy is negative but insignificant and effect of
phototherapy‑induced hypocalcemia on long‑term outcome of neonates is nil. Thus, calcium therapy is not
required in hypocalcemia associated with phototherapy, because it is asymptomatic and recovers of its own.
Address for correspondence: Dr. Jehangir Allam Bhat, World College of Medical Sciences, Jhajjar, Haryana, India.
E‑mail: ajaalam333@gmail.com
Received: 07.03.2019, Accepted: 10.03.2019
This is an open access journal, and articles are distributed under the terms of the Creative
Commons Attribution‑NonCommercial‑ShareAlike 4.0 License, which allows others to
remix, tweak, and build upon the work non‑commercially, as long as appropriate credit
Access this article online is given and the new creations are licensed under the identical terms.
age, mean weight, mean serum bilirubin, and duration of Comparison of pre‑ and post‑phototherapy and at
phototherapy are shown in Table 1. the 10 th day after phototherapy levels of calcium
showed statistical significance between pre‑ and
Only two babies developed symptoms of hypocalcemia post‑phototherapy (P ‑ 0.000) and post phototherapy
during phototherapy treatment. One developed jitteriness and at the 10th day after phototherapy (P = 0.00) levels
which did not need any calcium therapy and other with P < 0.05 as shown in Table 4. Pre and at 10th day
developed seizures which was managed by calcium as per after phototherapy levels of calcium comparison showed
protocol for the management of hypocalcemia. statistically insignificance (P = 0.183).
Out of total 380 neonates, calcium level of only 320 patients Correlation analysis of duration of phototherapy
was checked on follow‑up because 34 patients did not come with a change in calcium levels (difference of pre and
on the 10th day as advised. Reset 26 neonates developed postphototherapy calcium levels) showed negative but
illness such as septicemia, bronchopneumonia, meningitis, insignificant correlation with coefficient (r) of −0.008 and
or other form of illness thus were excluded from calcium P = 0.878 [Table 5 and Figure 1].
examination on the 10th day.
DISCUSSION
Our study revealed 48, i.e., 12.63% newborn out of
total 380 developed hypocalcemia and rest 332 (87.37%) Transcranial illumination of blue light during phototherapy
had nor mal calcium level during phototherapy causes the inhibition of melatonin secretion from the pineal
treatment [Table 2]. gland. Decreased melatonin leads to decreased the production
of corticosterone, thus decreasing bone resorption of calcium
Table 3 depicts the statistical values of bilirubin and calcium from bones which results in hypocalcemia.[8]
levels during various stages. It is worthy to observe that
mean calcium pre, post, and at after the 10th of phototherapy Prevalence of hypocalcemia in our study was 12.63%
was 8.3530 mg/dl, 7.4733 mg/dl, and 8.2812 mg/dl, which is similar to the prevalence of 15% and 14.4%
respectively. Mean of the difference of calcium between shown in their study by Karamifar et al.[9] and Ehsanipoor
pre‑ and post‑phototherapy was 0.8979 mg/dl and mean et al.,[10] respectively. In our study there occurred significant
duration of phototherapy was 38.05 h. decrease in calcium level of neonates during phototherapy,
which was supported by significant statistical difference
Table 2: Prevalence of hypocalcemia due to double surface
intensive phototherapy
when comparison of pre and post phototherapy calcium
Calcium status No. of neonates (%)
levels was done (P = 0.00). This result was supported by
Hypocalcemia 48 (12.63) a study of Bahbah et al.[11] who also showed P < 0.0001
Normocalcemia 332 (87.37) in their study when pre‑ and post‑phototherapy calcium
Total 380 (100)
levels were compared.
Table 5: Correlation of difference between pre‑ and research is needed to support this question of correlation
post‑phototherapy calcium levels with duration of of hypocalcemia with duration of phototherapy.
phototherapy
Correlation r CI for r Significant (P) CONCLUSION
Negative −0.008 −0.003–0.0234 0.878
r: Coefficient of correlation, CI: Confidence interval
There occurs significant asymptomatic phototherapy
induced hypocalcemia, correlation of this hypocalcemia
with the duration of phototherapy is negative but
insignificant and effect of phototherapy induced
hypocalcemia on long‑term outcome of neonates is nil
because no infant developed symptoms and signs of
hypocalcemia during 10 days observation and no statistical
difference was seen between prephototherapy and the
10th day calcium levels.
Recommendations
Calcium therapy is not required In hypocalcemia associated
with phototherapy, because it is asymptomatic and recovers
of its own.
Acknowledgment
Figure 1: Scatter plot of: Correlation of difference between pre
We are highly thankful to our hospital administration and
phototherapy and post phototherapy calcium levels and duration of
phototherapy parents of study new‑borns, who permitted us to conduct
this research. We also thank our senior and junior colleagues
Only two babies developed symptoms of hypocalcemia in for their valuable support.
our study which is in accordance with study of Karamifar
Financial support and sponsorship
et al.[9] who revealed no neonate developed symptoms of
Nil.
hypocalcemia while under phototherapy. Development of
hypocalcemia in two babies in our study could be explained Conflicts of interest
by large sample size (380) as compared to size (153) taken There are no conflicts of interest.
by Karamifar et al.[9]
REFERENCES
The study revealed that while observing the neonates
up to the 10th day of phototherapy, no one developed 1. Volpe JJ. Neurology of the Newborn. 5th ed. Philadelphia: W B
Saunders; 2008. p. 619‑51.
symptoms of hypocalcemia and calcium estimation on 2. Kappas A, Drummond GS, Henschke C, Valaes T. Direct comparison
that day showed a mean value of 8.2812. Comparison of sn‑mesoporphyrin, an inhibitor of bilirubin production, and
of the 10th day calcium level with pre phototherapy level phototherapy in controlling hyperbilirubinemia in term and near‑term
newborns. Pediatrics 1995;95:468‑74.
showed no significant difference (P = 0.183). Thus,
3. Gottstein R, Cooke RW. Systematic review of intravenous
phototherapy‑induced hypocalcemia is transient and immunoglobulin in haemolytic disease of the newborn. Arch Dis
asymptomatic. (No study is present on follow‑up of Child Fetal Neonatal Ed 2003;88:F6‑10.
phototherapy‑induced hypocalcemia neonates and their 4. Mreihil K, Madsen P, Nakstad B, Benth JŠ, Ebbesen F, Hansen TW,
et al. Early formation of bilirubin isomers during phototherapy for
subsequent calcium levels). neonatal jaundice: Effects of single vs. double fluorescent lamps vs.
photodiodes. Pediatr Res 2015;78:56‑62.
Phototherapy causes a decrease in level calcium, but there 5. American Academy of Pediatrics Subcommittee on Hyperbilirubinemia.
is no effect of duration of phototherapy on the level of Management of hyperbilirubinemia in the newborn infant 35 or more
calcium, i.e., negative (phototherapy causes a decrease weeks of gestation. Pediatrics 2004;114:297‑316.
6. Xiong T, Qu Y, Cambier S, Mu D. The side effects of phototherapy
in the level of calcium) but insignificant correlation. for neonatal jaundice: What do we know? What should we do? Eur J
However, a study conducted by Chandrashekar[12] revealed Pediatr 2011;170:1247‑55.
increase number of neonates developed hypocalcemia 7. Cloherty JP, Eichenwald EC, Hansen AR, Martin CR, Stark AR,
editors. Cloherty and Stark’s Manual of Newborn Care: Neonatal
with increase in duration of phototherapy but in his study
Hyperbilirubinemia. 7th ed. Wolter Kluwer: Philadelphia; 2008.
cutoff value for hypocalcemia was <7 mg/dl, which could p. 336‑7.
be the reason for the difference in our results. Thus, more 8. Hunter KM. Hypocalcemia. In: Cloherty JP, Eichenwald CE, Stark AR,
editors. Manual of Neonatal Care. 5th ed. Philadelphia: Lippincott 11. Bahbah MH, El Nemr FM, El Zayat RS, Khalid Aziz EA. Effect of
Williams & Wilkins; 2004. p. 579‑88. phototherapy on serum calcium level in neonatal jaundice. Menoufia
9. Karamifar H, Pishva N, Amirhakimi GH. Prevalence of phototherapy Med J 2015;28:426-30.
induced hypocalcemia. Int J Mol Sci 2002;4:166‑8. 12. Chandrashekar B. Effect of duration of phototherapy on serum
10. Ehsanipoor F, Khosravi N, Jalali S. The effect of hat on phototherapy calcium level in newborn with neonatal jaundice. Pediatr Rev Int J
induced hypocalcemia in icteric newborn. Razi J Med Sci 2008;15:25‑9. Pediatr Res 2014;1:88‑92.