4.4 Review

Prevalence and trends of Clostridioides difficile infection among persons requiring maintenance hemodialysis: A systematic review and meta-analysis

期刊

INFECTION CONTROL AND HOSPITAL EPIDEMIOLOGY
卷 44, 期 7, 页码 1068-1075

出版社

CAMBRIDGE UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1017/ice.2022.217

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Patients requiring maintenance hemodialysis have a higher risk of CDI compared to those not requiring hemodialysis, and the rates of CDI are increasing in both groups.
Objective: Clostridioides difficile infection (CDI) is among the most common cause of healthcare-associated infections. Persons requiring maintenance hemodialysis (MHD) are at increased risk of CDI and associated mortality compared to persons not requiring MHD. Given the clinical impact of CDI among persons requiring MHD, we aimed to quantify the burden of CDI and trends over time in this patient population. Study design: A systematic review and meta-analysis of studies reporting rates of CDI among persons requiring MHD in MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science Core Collection, CINAHL, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were performed. Searches were conducted on May 17, 2021, and March 4, 2022. Results: In total, 2,408 titles and abstracts were identified; 240 underwent full text review. Among them, 15 studies provided data on rates of CDI among persons requiring MHD, and 8 of these also provided rates among persons not requiring MHD. The pooled prevalence of CDI among persons requiring MHD was 19.14%, compared to 5.16% among persons not requiring MHD (odds ratio [OR], 4.35; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.07-9.16; P = .47). The linear increase in CDI over time was significant, increasing an average of 31.97% annually between 1993 and 2017 (OR, 1.32; 95% CI, 1.1-1.58; P < .01). The linear annual increase was similar among persons requiring and not requiring MHD (OR, 1.28; 95% CI, 1.13-1.45; P = .11). Conclusions: Persons requiring MHD have a 4-fold higher risk of CDI compared to persons not requiring MHD, and rates of CDI are increasing over time in both groups.

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

4.4
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