4.5 Article

Streptococcus agalactiae infection in cancer patients: a five-year study

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s10096-016-2617-9

关键词

-

资金

  1. CNPq
  2. FAPERJ
  3. SR2-UERJ

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Although the highest burden of Streptococcus agalactiae infections has been reported in industrialized countries, studies on the characterization and epidemiology are still limited in developing countries and implementation of control strategies remains undefined. The aim of this retrospective study was to assess the epidemiological, clinical, and microbiological aspects of S. agalactiae infections in cancer patients treated at a Reference Brazilian National Cancer Institute - INCA, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. We reviewed the clinical and laboratory records of all cancer patients identified as having invasive S. agalactiae disease during 2010-2014. The isolates were identified by biochemical analysis and tested for antimicrobial susceptibility. A total of 263 strains of S. agalactiae were isolated from cancer patients who had been clinically and microbiologically classified as infected. S. agalactiae infections were mostly detected among adults with solid tumors (94 %) and/or patients who have used indwelling medical devices (77.2 %) or submitted to surgical procedures (71.5 %). Mortality rates (in-hospital mortality during 30 days after the identification of S. agalactiae) related to invasive S. agalactiae infections (n = 28; 31.1 %) for the specific category of neoplasic diseases were: gastrointestinal (46 %), head and neck (25 %), lung (11 %), hematologic (11 %), gynecologic (4 %), and genitourinary (3 %). We also found an increase in S. agalactiae resistance to erythromycin and clindamycin and the emergence of penicillin-less susceptible isolates. A remarkable number of cases of invasive infections due to S. agalactiae strains was identified, mostly in adult patients. Our findings reinforce the need for S. agalactiae control measures in Brazil, including cancer patients.

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