4.2 Article

Impact of body mass index on clinical outcomes in patients with gram-negative bacteria bloodstream infections

期刊

JOURNAL OF INFECTION AND CHEMOTHERAPY
卷 22, 期 9-10, 页码 671-676

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.jiac.2016.07.006

关键词

Bloodstream infections; Sepsis; Obesity; Organ failure; Death

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Introduction: Excess body mass index (BMI) is associated with a higher risk of death in many disease states, yet less is known about the impact of higher BMIs on clinical outcomes of serious bacterial infections. We sought to quantify the risk of all-cause mortality and/or organ failure following Gram negative bacteria bloodstream infections (GNBSI) according to BMI. Materials and methods: We retrospectively reviewed the charts of patients with confirmed GNBSI who received >= 48 h of active antimicrobial therapy. Composite and component patient outcomes, including hospital mortality and organ failure, were assessed as a function of BMI. Organ failure was defined using modified consensus Surviving Sepsis Campaign definitions. Multi-variate methods were used to control for baseline confounders. Results: Seventy-six patients met our inclusion criteria, of whom 8 died (10.5%). The majority of GNBSI were Escherichia (41.6%) or Klebsiella species (23.3%). Patients with higher BMI more frequently developed cardiovascular failure (P = 0.032), respiratory failure (P < 0.001), renal failure (P = 0.003), and died (P = 0.009). Multivariate analyses demonstrated that higher BMIs were associated with a greater risk of death and/or organ failure (aOR 1.07, 95% CI 1.01-1.14), respiratory failure (aOR 1.10, 95% CI 1.03-1.17), and renal failure (aOR 1.08, 95% CI 1.01-1.14) after adjusting for relevant covariates. Conclusion: Higher BM's in patients with GNBSIs were associated with a greater risk of a composite of all-cause mortality and organ failure. (C) 2016 Japanese Society of Chemotherapy and The Japanese Association for Infectious Diseases. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

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

4.2
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