4.6 Article

Predictors of Mortality in Patients with Carbapenem-Resistant Gram-Negative Bacilli or Vancomycin-Resistant Enterococci Bacteremia

期刊

INFECTION AND DRUG RESISTANCE
卷 13, 期 -, 页码 3535-3542

出版社

DOVE MEDICAL PRESS LTD
DOI: 10.2147/IDR.S269087

关键词

prognostic factor; carbapenem-resistant; vancomycin-resistant; bacteremia; mortality

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose: The incidences of carbapenem-resistant gram-negative bacilli (CRGNB) and vancomycin-resistant Enterococci (VRE) have increased rapidly in South Korea since 2000. The mortality rate for CRGNB or VRE bacteremia cases is higher than that for nonresistant bacteremia cases. The factors associated with higher mortality are unclear. We investigated the factors associated with mortality from CRGNB or VRE bacteremia and compared the relative risk of these factors. Patients and Methods: We retrospectively collected data from adult patients with CRGNB or VRE bacteremia. Patients were grouped according to whether they survived or died. The data from both groups were compared. Results: During the study period, 171 cases of CRGNB or VRE bacteremia were identified, of which 100 were CRGNB bacteremia cases and 71 were VRE bacteremia cases. Multivariate analysis revealed significant associations with Pitt bacteremia score (PBS) (odds ratio [OR] 1.329, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.049-1.684). In the multivariate analysis, negative conversion of follow-up blood culture (FUBC) was related with one-week mortality from CRGNB or VRE bacteremia (OR 17.623, 95% CI 5.726-54.244). In the multivariate analysis of risk factors for 28-day mortality for CRGNB or VRE bacteremia, the significant risk factors were bacteremia of respiratory origin (OR 4.491, 95% CI 1.622-12.435) and positive FUBC (OR 4.082, 95% CI 1.626-10.204). Conclusion: Despite the high mortality rate in patients with CRGNB or VRE bacteremia, the related mortality could be predicted by independent risk factors of PBS, positive FUBC, and bacteremia of respiratory origin.

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