4.2 Article

Bloodstream infection caused by enteric organisms during the first 6 months after intestinal transplant

Journal

TRANSPLANT INFECTIOUS DISEASE
Volume 21, Issue 3, Pages -

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/tid.13064

Keywords

bloodstream infection; enteric organisms; gut translocation; multidrug-resistant organisms; rejection

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background Data on bloodstream infection (BSI) due to enteric organisms are scarce. Methods This retrospective study (1/2009-5/2017) was aimed to evaluate the incidence of BSI episodes due to enteric organisms during the first 6 months after intestinal transplant (ITx). Differences between the first (2009-2012) and second period (2013-2017) were evaluated as they differed from each other in the perioperative fungal prophylaxis and immunosuppressive regimen. Results Fifty-five adult patients were analyzed. Twenty-eight (51%) patients developed a total of 51 episodes of BSI. Mean time from transplant to BSI was 85.5 +/- 58.8 days. The most common organisms were Klebsiella pneumoniae (33%), Enterococcus spp (31%), and Candida spp (18%). Twenty-three (45%) were multidrug resistant. The most common sources were gut translocation (35%), central line infection (20%), and intra-abdominal abscess (14%). Biopsy-proven rejection was associated with 16 (31%) of the BSI episodes. Patients during the first period were more likely to develop BSI (79% vs 41%, P = 0.03). There were more episodes of rejection associated with BSI in the first period (45% vs 14%, P = 0.03). The rate of reoperation into the abdominal cavity within 2 weeks after ITx was higher and the transplant hospital stay was longer among those who developed BSI (P = 0.04 for both). Conclusions Half of our patients developed BSI (typically during the first 3 months). Gut translocation was the most common source of BSI. Patients with rejection and/or enteritis should be monitored closely for BSI.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available