4.2 Article

Bacteremia in Hemodialysis and Peritoneal Dialysis Patients

期刊

INTERNAL MEDICINE
卷 51, 期 9, 页码 1015-1021

出版社

JAPAN SOC INTERNAL MEDICINE
DOI: 10.2169/internalmedicine.51.7111

关键词

bacteremia; dialysis; end-stage renal disease; incidence rate; mortality

资金

  1. China Medical University Hospital [DMR 98-023]
  2. Taiwan Department of Health Clinical Trial and Research Center of Excellence [DOH101-TD-B-111-004]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective To analyze the incidence rates and risk factors for bacteremia in patients undergoing hemodialysis (HD) and peritoneal dialysis (PD). Methods The records of 898 consecutive patients undergoing dialysis from January 2003 to December 2008 were reviewed retrospectively. Episodes of bacteremia were recorded. China Medical University (Taichung, Taiwan). Results The overall incidence rate of bacteremia was 7.63 per 100 patient-years in HD patients and 3.56 per 100 patient-years in PD patients and it was higher in HD patients each year from 2003 to 2008. S. aureus (27.53%) was the most common pathogen in HD patients, whereas Coagulase-negative Staphylococcus (21.3%) was the most common pathogen in PD patients. Vascular access infection was the most common etiology in HD patients, whereas peritonitis was the most common etiology in PD patients. Older age, shorter dialysis vintage, use of HD rather than PD, current smoker, use of a venous dialysis catheter, presence of diabetes mellitus, higher comorbidity score, and lower serum albumin were significant risk factors for bacteremia. Diabetes mellitus and lower serum albumin were significant risk factors for bacteremia-associated mortality. Conclusion Placement of a permanent access (fistula, graft, or PD catheter) prior to initiation of dialysis, smoking cessation, and better nutritional status (i.e. higher serum albumin) were associated with a reduced risk of bacteremia in dialysis patients. Higher serum albumin was also associated with a reduced bacteremia-associated mortality.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.2
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据