4.7 Article

Bloodstream infections in neutropenic patients with cancer: Differences between patients with haematological malignancies and solid tumours

Journal

JOURNAL OF INFECTION
Volume 69, Issue 5, Pages 417-423

Publisher

W B SAUNDERS CO LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.jinf.2014.05.018

Keywords

Bacteraemia; Bloodstream infection; Cancer; Neutropenia; Solid tumour

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objectives: We sought to identify the characteristics, aetiology, antibiotic resistance and outcomes of bloodstream infection (BSI) in neutropenic patients with haematological malignancies (HM) and in those with solid tumours (ST) and assess their impact on empirical therapy and outcomes. Methods: All episodes of BSI in neutropenic patients with HM and ST were prospectively recorded and compared. Results: Of 579 episodes of BSI, 493 occurred in patients with HM and 86 in patients with ST. An endogenous source and catheter-related infection were more frequent in patients with HM, whereas pneumonia and urinary tract were more common in the ST group. BSI was mainly due to Gram-negative bacilli. Coagulase-negative staphylococci were more frequent in patients with HM, while Pseudomonas aeruginosa was more common in patients with ST and was the leading cause of pneumonia. Multidrug-resistant Gram-negative bacilli (MDRGNB) were more frequently isolated in haematological patients who more often received inadequate empirical therapy than those with ST. Case-fatality rates were higher in patients with ST. Conclusions: We identified significant differences in BSI in neutropenic patients with HM and ST. MDRGNB were more often isolated in patients with HM. Pneumonia due to P. aeruginosa was particularly frequent among patients with ST. Case-fatality rates were higher in patients with ST. (C) 2014 The British Infection Association. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available