4.3 Article

USA300 methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus bacteremia and the risk of severe sepsis: is USA300 methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus associated with more severe infections?

Journal

DIAGNOSTIC MICROBIOLOGY AND INFECTIOUS DISEASE
Volume 70, Issue 3, Pages 285-290

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.diagmicrobio.2011.03.010

Keywords

Staphylococcus aureus; Methicillin resistance; Community-acquired infections; Bacteremia; Bacterial typing techniques; Electrophoresis; Gel; Pulsed-field

Funding

  1. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
  2. University of Maryland General Clinical Research Center [M01 RR016500]
  3. General Clinical Research Centers, National Center for Research Resources (NCRR), NIH
  4. National Institutes of Health [K12 RR023250-03]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

USA300 methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) is increasing as a cause of severe community-associated bacteremic infections. We assessed severe sepsis in response to infection in patients with USA300 MRSA compared to non-USA300 MRSA bacteremia. A cohort study was conducted from 1997 to 2008 comparing sepsis in response to infection in 271 patients with MRSA bacteremia from 4 VA hospitals. Sixty-seven (25%) patients with MRSA bacteremia were USA300 MRSA; 204 (75%) were non-USA300 MRSA. The proportion of MRSA bacteremia caused by USA300 MRSA increased over time (chi(2) P < 0.0001). Adjusting for age and nosocomial infection, patients with USA300 MRSA bacteremia were more likely to have severe sepsis or septic shock in response to infection than patients with non-USA300 MRSA bacteremia (adjusted relative risk = 1.82; 95% confidence interval, 1.16-2.87; P = 0.01). This suggests that patients with USA300 MRSA are more likely to develop severe sepsis in response to their infection, which could be due to host or bacterial differences. (c) 2011 Elsevier Inc. 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

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available