4.5 Article

Bloodstream Infections and Clinical Significance of Healthcare-associated Bacteremia: A Multicenter Surveillance Study in Korean Hospitals

期刊

JOURNAL OF KOREAN MEDICAL SCIENCE
卷 25, 期 7, 页码 992-998

出版社

KOREAN ACAD MEDICAL SCIENCES
DOI: 10.3346/jkms.2010.25.7.992

关键词

Bloodstream infection; Bacteremia; Community-acquired; Hospital-acquired; Healthcare-associated

资金

  1. Korea Centers for Disease Control and Prevention [2007-E-00129-00, 2007-E00037-00]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Recent changes in healthcare systems have changed the epidemiologic paradigms in many infectious fields including bloodstream infection (BSI). We compared clinical characteristics of community-acquired (CA), hospital-acquired (HA), and healthcare-associated (HCA) BSI. We performed a prospective nationwide multicenter surveillance study from 9 university hospitals in Korea. Total 1,605 blood isolates were collected from 2006 to 2007, and 1,144 isolates were considered true pathogens. HA-BSI accounted for 48.8%, CA-BSI for 33.2%, and HCA-BSI for 18.0%. HA-BSI and HCA-BSI were more likely to have severe comorbidities. Escherichia coli was the most common isolate in CA-BSI (47.1%) and HCA-BSI (27.2%). In contrast, Staphylococcus aureus (15.2%), coagulase-negative Staphylococcus (15.1%) were the common isolates in HA-BSI. The rate of appropriate empiric antimicrobial therapy was the highest in CA-BSI (89.0%) followed by HCA-BSI (76.4%), and HA-BSI (75.0%). The 30-day mortality rate was the highest in HA-BSI (23.0%) followed by HCA-BSI (18.4%), and CA-BSI (10.2%). High Pitt score and inappropriate empirical antibiotic therapy were the independent risk factors for mortality by multivariate analysis. In conclusion, the present data suggest that clinical features, outcome, and microbiologic features of causative pathogens vary by origin of BSI. Especially, HCA-BSI shows unique clinical characteristics, which should be considered a distinct category for more appropriate antibiotic treatment.

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

4.5
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