4.2 Review

Lactococcus lactis cholangitis and bacteremia identified by MALDI-TOF mass spectrometry: A case report and review of the literature on Lactococcus lactis infection

期刊

JOURNAL OF INFECTION AND CHEMOTHERAPY
卷 25, 期 2, 页码 141-146

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.jiac.2018.07.010

关键词

Lactococcus lactis; Matrix-assisted desorption/ionization time of-flight mass spectrometry (MALDI-TOF MS); Cholangitis; Bacteremia

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Lactococcus lactis is a rare causative organism in humans. Cases of L lactis infection have only rarely been reported. However, because it is often difficult to identify by conventional commercially available methods, its incidence may be underestimated. We herein report the case of a 70-year-old man with cholangiocarcinoma who developed L lactis cholangitis and review previously reported cases of L lactis infection. Our case was confirmed by matrix-assisted desorption/ionization time-of-flight mass spectrometry (MALDI-TOF MS). This case shows L. lactis is a potential causative pathogen of cholangitis and that MALDI-TOF MS can be useful for the rapid and accurate identification of L lactis infection. We searched the literature for published case reports on cholangitis and any other infections caused by L. lactis, and thereby identified 36 cases, including our case. At least 66.7% (n = 24) of the cases had significant underlying conditions; 15 of the cases involved patients with an immunocompromised status. At least 41.7% (n = 15) had a significant food consumption history, such as the consumption of unpasteurized dairy products. The clinical sources of L. lactis were diverse and endocarditis was the most common diagnosis (n = 8), followed by hepatobiliary infection (n = 6), central nervous system infection (n = 5), and peritonitis (n = 4). The prognosis was favorable in most cases. (C) 2018 Japanese Society of Chemotherapy and The Japanese Association for Infectious Diseases. 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

4.2
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