4.7 Article Proceedings Paper

Nosocomial bloodstream infections caused by Acinetobacter species in United States hospitals: Clinical features, molecular epidemiology, and antimicrobial susceptibility

Journal

CLINICAL INFECTIOUS DISEASES
Volume 31, Issue 3, Pages 690-697

Publisher

OXFORD UNIV PRESS INC
DOI: 10.1086/314040

Keywords

-

Ask authors/readers for more resources

We examined the clinical and epidemiological features of nosocomial bloodstream infections (BSIs) caused by Acinetobacter species and observed from 1 March 1995 through 28 February 1998 at 49 United States hospitals (SCOPE National Surveillance Program). Acinetobacter species were found in 24 hospitals (49%) and accounted for 1.5% of all nosocomial BSIs reported. One hundred twenty-nine isolates were identified either as A. baumannii (n = 111) or other Acinetobacter species (n = 18). Patients with A. baumannii BSI, compared with patients with nosocomial BSI caused by other gram-negative pathogens, were more frequently observed in the intensive care unit (69% vs. 47%, respectively; P < .001; odds ratio [OR] 2.4; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.6-3.7) and were more frequently receiving mechanical ventilation (58% vs. 30%, respectively; P < .001; OR 3.2; 95% CI 2.1-4.8). Crude mortality in patients with A. baumannii BSI was 32%. Molecular relatedness of strains was studied by use of polymerase chain reaction-based fingerprinting. Clonal spread of a single strain occurred in 5 hospitals, Interhospital spread of epidemic A. baumannii strains was not observed, The most active antimicrobial agents against A. baumannii (90% minimum inhibitory concentration values) were imipenem (1 mg/L; 100% of isolates susceptible), amikacin (8 mg/L; 96%), tobramycin (4 mg/L; 92%), and doxycycline (4 mg/L; 91%), Thirty percent of isolates were resistant to greater than or equal to4 classes of antimicrobials and were considered to be multidrug resistant.

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