4.7 Article

Risk factors for mortality of nosocomial methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) bloodstream infection: With investigation of the potential role of community-associated MRSA strains

期刊

JOURNAL OF INFECTION
卷 61, 期 6, 页码 449-457

出版社

W B SAUNDERS CO LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.jinf.2010.09.029

关键词

Multilocus sequence typing; Staphylococcal cassette chromosome mec; Vancomycin

资金

  1. National Science Council, Taiwan [NSC 95-2314-B-002-250-MY2]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objectives: The difference in the outcomes of nosocomial bloodstream infection (BSI) caused by community-associated methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (CA-MRSA) strains and healthcare-associated MRSA (HA-MRSA) strains remains unclear. Methods: From January 1, 2006 to December 31, 2008, all adult patients hospitalized at National Taiwan University Hospital with nosocomial MRSA BSI were analyzed. Available MRSA isolates were submitted for subsequent microbiologic studies to determine whether they belonged to CA-MRSA strains. Results: In total, 308 patients were enrolled and 253 MRSA isolates were available. Forty-seven isolates belonged to CA-MRSA strains. The all-cause mortality rates on Day 14 and Day 30 were 19.8% and 30.5%, respectively, and were not different between those caused by CA-MRSA and HA-MRSA strains. The independent risk factors for Day 14 mortality were septic shock, thrombocytopenia, and an inadequate serum trough level of vancomycin (p = <0.0001, 0.0003, and 0.0381, respectively). Those for Day 30 mortality were septic shock, anemia, thrombocytopenia, presence of underlying malignancies, and MRSA isolates with a vancomycin minimum inhibitory concentration of 2 mg/L (p = <0.0001, 0.0425, 0.0007, 0.0098, and 0.0012, respectively). Conclusions: The mortality rates of nosocomial MRSA BSI were not different between that caused by CA-MRSA and HA-MRSA strains. (C) 2010 The British Infection Association. 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