4.7 Article

Predictors of infectious foci on FDG PET/CT in Staphylococcus aureus bacteremia

期刊

SCIENTIFIC REPORTS
卷 13, 期 1, 页码 -

出版社

NATURE PORTFOLIO
DOI: 10.1038/s41598-023-41336-6

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We explored the predicting factors for the detection of infectious foci on FDG PET/CT among patients with SAB and found that community-acquired bacteremia and high CRP levels were independent predictors for focal infection detection. Additionally, primary bacteremia and blood glucose levels showed an inverse association with focal infection detection.
We looked for predicting factors for the detection of infectious foci on 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose-positron emission tomography in combination with computed tomography (FDG PET/CT) among patients with Staphylococcus aureus bacteremia (SAB) who participated in an interventional study that was conducted at Rambam Health Care Campus, between July 1, 2015 and February 1, 2019. The primary outcome was an infectious focus detected by FDG PET/CT. Independent predictors for detection of focal infection were identified using univariate followed by a logistic regression multivariate analysis. We included 149 patients with 151 separate episodes of SAB who underwent FDG-PET/CT. Focal infections were detected in 107 patients (70.8%). Independent predictors for focal infection detection were community acquisition of bacteremia with odds ratio (OR) 3.03 [95% confidence interval (CI) 1.04-8.77], p-0.042 and C reactive protein (CRP) with OR 1.09 [95% CI 1.04-1.14], p < 0.001. Primary bacteremia was inversely associated with focal infection detection with OR 0.27 [0.10-0.69], p = 0.007, as were the pre-scan blood glucose levels OR 0.9 [0.98-0.99], p-0.004. The latter stayed significant in the subgroup of patients with diabetes mellitus. To conclude, patients with community-acquired bacteremia or high CRP levels should be carefully investigated for focal infection. Patients who present with primary bacteremia seem to be at low risk for focal infection.

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