4.3 Article

Scedosporium species and Lomentospora prolificans fungaemia is uniformly fatal in patients with haematological malignancy

期刊

INTERNAL MEDICINE JOURNAL
卷 53, 期 8, 页码 1489-1491

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/imj.16198

关键词

invasive fungal disease; fungaemia; Lomentospora; leukaemia; lymphoma

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A 20-year study in Queensland, Australia, found that Scedosporium and Lomentospora species, which are environmental moulds, rarely cause bloodstream infection in immunocompromised hosts. Among 22 incident episodes of Scedosporium and Lomentospora species bloodstream infection, 18 were caused by Lomentospora prolificans, 3 by Scedosporium apiospermum complex, and 1 by a nonspeciated Scedosporium species. The overall mortality rate for these patients was high, with 81% dying during their index admission and all-cause mortality at 30, 90, and 365 days being 73%, 82%, and 91% respectively. In addition, all 20 patients with haematological malignancy died within 365 days of follow-up, with a median time to death of 9 days following the diagnosis of bloodstream infection.
Scedosporium and Lomentospora species are environmental moulds that are virulent in immunocompromised hosts and rarely cause bloodstream infection (BSI). Patients with Scedosporium and Lomentospora species BSI were identified by the state public laboratory service in Queensland, Australia, over a 20-year period. Twenty-two incident episodes occurred among 21 residents; one patient had a second episode 321 days following the first. Of these, 18 were Lomentospora prolificans, three were Scedosporium apiospermum complex and one was a nonspeciated Scedosporium species. Seventeen (81%) patients died during their index admission, and all-cause mortality at 30, 90 and 365 days was 73%, 82% and 91% respectively. All 20 patients with haematological malignancy died within 365 days of follow-up with a median time to death of 9 days (interquartile range, 6-20 days) following diagnoses of BSI.

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

4.3
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