4.7 Article

Prostatic Abscess Caused by Klebsiella pneumoniae: A 6-Year Single-Center Study

期刊

JOURNAL OF CLINICAL MEDICINE
卷 11, 期 9, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/jcm11092521

关键词

prostatic abscess; Klebsiella pneumoniae; hypervirulence

资金

  1. Jeonbuk National University

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study investigated the clinical and microbiological characteristics of prostatic abscesses caused by Klebsiella pneumoniae. The results showed that a particular hypervirulent strain of K. pneumoniae, associated with the K1 capsular type and the presence of the rmpA and iutA genes, was an important pathogen in prostatic abscesses.
Hypervirulent Klebsiella pneumoniae (hvKp) is an important strain that can cause multiple organ infections. Although hvKp infection cases are increasing, there is limited information on the prostatic abscesses caused by K. pneumoniae. Furthermore, the clinical significance of hvKp associated with K1 or K2 capsular types or virulence genes in prostatic abscesses remains unclear. Therefore, we aimed to elucidate the clinical and microbiological characteristics of prostatic abscesses caused by K. pneumoniae in relation to various virulence genes. A retrospective study was performed at a 1200-bed tertiary hospital between January 2014 and December 2019. Patients diagnosed with prostatic abscesses with K. pneumoniae isolated from blood, urine, pus, or tissue cultures were enrolled in this study. Our results demonstrate that 30.3% (10/33) of the prostatic abscesses were caused by K. pneumoniae. All strains isolated from patients with prostatic abscesses due to K. pneumoniae were the K1 capsular type, and eight patients (80.0%) carried rmpA and iutA genes that identified hvKp. These findings suggest that hvKp is an important pathogen in prostatic abscesses. Therefore, when treating patients with K. pneumoniae prostatic abscesses, attention should be paid to the characteristics of hvKp, such as bacteremia, multiorgan abscess formation, and metastatic spread.

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

4.7
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