4.5 Article

Clinical significance of Staphylococcus aureus bacteremia in patients with liver cirrhosis

Journal

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s10096-012-1697-4

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. Asan Institute for Life Sciences, Seoul, Korea [2008-131, 2007-131, 2001-131]
  2. Korea Institute of Industrial Technology(KITECH) [2008-131] Funding Source: Korea Institute of Science & Technology Information (KISTI), National Science & Technology Information Service (NTIS)

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Patients with liver cirrhosis (LC) have impaired immunity and thus are predisposed to infections. Few studies have attempted to evaluate Staphylococcus aureus bacteremia (SAB) in LC patients. Therefore, this study prospectively evaluated the clinical characteristics and outcomes of 642 episodes of SAB from August 1, 2008 to September 31, 2010. Of 642 patients with SAB, 109 (17.0 %) were classified as LC patients whereas the remaining 533 (83.0 %) were classified as non-LC patients. The 30-day mortality rate of LC patients was significantly higher than that of patients with other diseases (32 % vs. 22 %, respectively; P = 0.047). The 30-day mortality rates of patients with MSSA bacteremia and MRSA bacteremia were not significantly different among LC patients (35.1 % with MSSA vs. 26.9 % with MRSA; P = 0.41). A univariate analysis of the 30-day mortality rate of LC patients with SAB for survivors and non-survivors showed that rapidly fatal or ultimately fatal according to the criteria of McCabe and Jackson (OR 5.0; 95 % CI 1.60-15.65), septic shock at initial presentation (OR 3.5; 95 % CI 1.18-10.39) and Child-Pugh class C (OR 2.8; 95 % CI 1.20-6.59) were associated with increased mortality. In contrast, the removal of the eradicable focus was associated with decreased mortality (OR 0.14; 95 % CI 0.04-0.52). Disease severity and liver dysfunction may be useful for predicting the prognosis of SAB in LC patients.

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