4.6 Article

Molecular Analysis and Risk Factors for Escherichia coli Producing Extended-Spectrum β-Lactamase Bloodstream Infection in Hematological Malignancies

期刊

PLOS ONE
卷 7, 期 4, 页码 -

出版社

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0035780

关键词

-

资金

  1. CONACYT (Consejo Nacional de Ciencia y Tecnologia) [SALUD-2003-C01-009]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Introduction: Patients with hematologic malignancies have greater risk-factors for primary bloodstream infections (BSI). Methods: From 2004-2009, we analyzed bacteremia caused by extended-spectrum beta-lactamase Escherichia coli (ESBL-EC) (n = 100) and we compared with bacteremia caused by cephalosporin-susceptible E. coli (n = 100) in patients with hematologic malignancies. Objective: To assess the clinical features, risk factors, and outcome of ESBL-EC BSI in patients with hematologic malignancies, and to study the molecular epidemiology of ESBL-EC isolates. Results: The main diagnosis was acute leukemia in 115 patients (57.5%). Death-related E. coli infection was significantly increased with ESBL-EC (34% vs. control group, 19%; p = 0.03). Treatment for BSI was considered appropriate in 64 patients with ESBL-EC (mean survival, 245 +/- 345 days), and in 45 control patients this was 443 +/- 613 (p = 0.03). In patients not receiving appropriate antimicrobial treatment, survival was significantly decreased in cases compared with controls (26 +/- 122 vs. 276 +/- 442; p = 0.001). Fifty six of the ESBL-EC isolates were characterized by molecular analysis: 47 (84%) expressed CTX-M-15, two (3.6%) SHV, and seven (12.5%) did not correspond to either of these two ESBL enzymes. No TLA-1 enzyme was detected. Conclusions: Patients who had been previously hospitalized and who received cephalosporins during the previous month, have an increased risk of ESBL-EC bacteremia. Mortality was significantly increased in patients with ESBL-EC BSI. A polyclonal trend was detected, which reflects non-cross transmission of multiresistant E. coli isolates.

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