4.7 Article

Clinical relevance of Mycobacterium chelonae-abscessus group isolation in 95 patients

期刊

JOURNAL OF INFECTION
卷 59, 期 5, 页码 324-331

出版社

W B SAUNDERS CO LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.jinf.2009.08.016

关键词

Mycobacterium abscessus; Mycobacterium bolletii; Mycobacterium chelonae; Mycobacterium infections, atypical; Mycobacterium massiliense; Cystic fibrosis; Nontuberculous mycobacteria; Opportunist mycobacteria

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objectives: To determine the clinical relevance of Mycobacterium chelonae-abscessus group isolation from clinical samples. Methods: We retrospectively reviewed medical files of all patients from whom these mycobacteria were isolated between January 1999 and January 2005 and re-identified the isolates by rpoB sequencing. We applied the American Thoracic Society (ATS) diagnostic criteria to establish clinical relevance. Results: Ninety-five patients were traced (56 M. chelonae, 25 Mycobacterium abscessus, 8 Mycobacterium massiliense, 6 Mycobacterium bolletii). Most isolates were cultured from pulmonary samples in patients with pre-existing pulmonary disease. Among patients with pulmonary isolates, 27% (20/74) meets ATS criteria; M. abscessus is most relevant (50%; 9/18), followed by M. massiliense (29%; 2/7), M. bolletii (20%; 1/5) and M. chelonae (18%; 8/44). Extrapulmonary disease presented as disseminated skin disease, eye disease specific for M. chelonae and otomastoiditis for M. abscessus. Treatment, especially for pulmonary M. abscessus disease, yielded limited results. Conclusions: One-fourth of the patients with pulmonary M. chelonae-abscessus group isolates met the ATS criteria; this percentage differs by species. Species distribution and clinical relevance differ from other regions. M. abscessus isolation in cystic fibrosis patients warrants special attention. Current ATS criteria might be too lenient to diagnose M. chelonae-abscessus group disease. (c) 2009 The British Infection Society. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

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

4.7
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