4.5 Article

Pseudomonas aeruginosa Bloodstream Infections in Patients with Cancer: Differences between Patients with Hematological Malignancies and Solid Tumors

Journal

PATHOGENS
Volume 11, Issue 10, Pages -

Publisher

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/pathogens11101132

Keywords

Pseudomonas aeruginosa; bacteremia; bloodstream infection; cancer; solid tumor; hematologic malignancy

Categories

Funding

  1. ESCMID Study Group for Immunocompromised Hosts (ESGICH)
  2. Spanish Network for Research in Infectious Diseases
  3. Rio Hortega program of the Instituto de Salud Carlos III
  4. ESCMID Study Group for Bloodstream Infections, Endocarditis, and Sepsis (ESGBIES)

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study assessed the clinical features and outcomes of Pseudomonas aeruginosa bloodstream infection (PA BSI) in neutropenic patients with hematological malignancies (HM) and solid tumors (ST). The study found differences in the clinical characteristics and outcomes between hematologic patients and patients with solid tumors. Hematologic patients had more profound neutropenia and a higher risk MASCC index score, while patients with solid tumors were more likely to develop septic shock and had higher mortality rates. Hematologic patients also had more frequent multidrug-resistant P. aeruginosa infections and were more likely to receive inadequate initial antibiotic therapy. Therapy with granulocyte colony-stimulating factor was associated with improved survival in both groups.
Objectives: To assess the clinical features and outcomes of Pseudomonas aeruginosa bloodstream infection (PA BSI) in neutropenic patients with hematological malignancies (HM) and with solid tumors (ST), and identify the risk factors for 30-day mortality. Methods: We performed a large multicenter, retrospective cohort study including onco-hematological neutropenic patients with PA BSI conducted across 34 centers in 12 countries (January 2006-May 2018). Episodes occurring in hematologic patients were compared to those developing in patients with ST. Risk factors associated with 30-day mortality were investigated in both groups. Results: Of 1217 episodes of PA BSI, 917 occurred in patients with HM and 300 in patients with ST. Hematological patients had more commonly profound neutropenia (0.1 x 10(9) cells/mm) (67% vs. 44.6%; p < 0.001), and a high risk Multinational Association for Supportive Care in Cancer (MASCC) index score (32.2% vs. 26.7%; p = 0.05). Catheter-infection (10.7% vs. 4.7%; p = 0.001), mucositis (2.4% vs. 0.7%; p = 0.042), and perianal infection (3.6% vs. 0.3%; p = 0.001) predominated as BSI sources in the hematological patients, whereas pneumonia (22.9% vs. 33.7%; p < 0.001) and other abdominal sites (2.8% vs. 6.3%; p = 0.006) were more common in patients with ST. Hematological patients had more frequent BSI due to multidrug-resistant P. aeruginosa (MDRPA) (23.2% vs. 7.7%; p < 0.001), and were more likely to receive inadequate initial antibiotic therapy (IEAT) (20.1% vs. 12%; p < 0.001). Patients with ST presented more frequently with septic shock (45.8% vs. 30%; p < 0.001), and presented worse outcomes, with increased 7-day (38% vs. 24.2%; p < 0.001) and 30-day (49% vs. 37.3%; p < 0.001) case-fatality rates. Risk factors for 30-day mortality in hematologic patients were high risk MASCC index score, IEAT, pneumonia, infection due to MDRPA, and septic shock. Risk factors for 30-day mortality in patients with ST were high risk MASCC index score, IEAT, persistent BSI, and septic shock. Therapy with granulocyte colony-stimulating factor was associated with survival in both groups. Conclusions: The clinical features and outcomes of PA BSI in neutropenic cancer patients showed some differences depending on the underlying malignancy. Considering these differences and the risk factors for mortality may be useful to optimize their therapeutic management. Among the risk factors associated with overall mortality, IEAT and the administration of granulocyte colony-stimulating factor were the only modifiable variables.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available