4.6 Article

Clinical Outcome of Mycobacterium abscessus Infection and Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing

期刊

出版社

ELSEVIER TAIWAN
DOI: 10.1016/S1684-1182(10)60063-1

关键词

Mycobacterium abscessus; rapidly growing mycobacteria; susceptibility testing

向作者/读者索取更多资源

BACKGROUND/PURPOSE: Mycobacterium abscessus is the most resistant and rapidly growing mycobacterium and causes a wide range of clinical infectious diseases. The relationship between antimicrobial susceptibility and clinical outcome needs to be further evaluated. METHODS: Forty M. abscessus isolates were obtained from clinical specimens of 40 patients at the Taichung Veterans General Hospital from January 2006 to December 2008. Antimicrobial susceptibility testing was performed using the broth microdilution method according to the recommendations of the National Committee for Clinical Laboratory Standards The clinical manifestations and outcomes were reviewed from medical records RESULTS: Twenty-two patients were diagnosed with M abscessus infection. Cough (86.3%), hemoptysis (31.8%) and fever (18 1%) were the most common symptoms The radiographic Findings included reticulonodular opacities (50.0%), consolidation (31 8%) and cavitary lesions (18.1%) The 40 isolates were susceptible to amikacin (95.0%), cefoxitin (32.5%), ciprofloxacin (10.0%), clarithromycin (92.5%), doxycycline (7.5%), imipenem (12 5%), moxifloxacin (22.5%), sulfamethoxazole (7.5%) and tigecycline (100%) The rate of treatment failure was 27.3% at the end oldie 12(th) month after the start of treatment, although these patients were treated with a combination of clarithromycin and other antimicrobial agents. CONCLUSION: M. abscessus is naturally susceptible to clarithromycin and amikacin, variably susceptible to cefoxitin and imipenem, and resistant to most other antimicrobial drugs. Combination therapy with clarithromycm, amikacin and other active antimicrobial agents may lead to clinical improvement, however, the rate of treatment failure is still high.

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

4.6
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