4.6 Article

Polymicrobial Bloodstream Infection in Neonates: Microbiology, Clinical Characteristics, and Risk Factors

期刊

PLOS ONE
卷 9, 期 1, 页码 -

出版社

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0083082

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Polymicrobial bloodstream infections (PBSIs) have been associated with complex underlying medical conditions and a high incidence of specific microorganisms in several settings, but the relevant data are scarce in neonates. Methods: Positive blood cultures from January 2004 to December 2011 in the neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) of Chang Gung Memorial Hospital (CGMH) were reviewed. Each neonate with PBSI (case episode) was matched to two episodes of monomicrobial BSI (control episode) by birth weight, gestational age and gender. Records were reviewed to compare their underlying medical conditions, organisms isolated, adequacy of therapy, clinical characteristics and outcomes. Results: Forty-five episodes of PBSI (4.4% of all neonatal BSIs) were identified in 43 neonates. Gram-negative organisms constituted 59.8% of all PBSI pathogens, and 33 (73.3%) of PBSIs were caused by at least one Gram-negative organism. PBSIs were significantly more likely to be the recurrent episode and have endotracheal tube in place. No significant difference was found between PBSIs and controls in terms of demographics and most chronic conditions. PBSIs were significantly associated with a higher severity of illness, a longer duration of septic symptoms, and a higher rate of modification of antimicrobial regimens than monomicrobial BSIs. However, the sepsis-attributable mortality rates were comparable between these two groups. Conclusions: In the NICU, PBSIs were more often caused by Gram-negative bacilli, and often occurred in neonates without any chronic conditions. The clinical significance of PBSIs included a more severe illness, longer duration of septic symptoms and a higher rate of modification of antimicrobial regimens.

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