4.6 Article

Predicting resistant etiology in hospitalized patients with blood cultures positive for Gram-negative bacilli

期刊

EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF INTERNAL MEDICINE
卷 53, 期 -, 页码 21-28

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.ejim.2018.01.029

关键词

Gram-negative bacilli; Multidrug-resistant; Bloodstream infections

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: To develop a risk-scoring tool to predict multidrug-resistant (MDR) etiology in patients with bloodstream infections (BSI) caused by Gram-negative bacilli (GNB). Methods: A prospective multicenter study analyzed patients with BSI hospitalized in 31 Internal Medicine wards in Italy from March 2012 to December 2012. Patients with BSI caused by MDR-GNB (non-susceptible to at least one agent in three antimicrobial categories) were compared to those with BSI due to susceptible GNB. A logistic regression to identify predictive factors of MDR-GNB was performed and the odds ratio (OR) were calculated. A score to predict the risk of MDR was developed. Results: Of 533 BSI episodes, 253 (47.5%) were caused by GNB. Among GNB-BSI, 122 (48.2%) were caused by MDR-GNB while 131 (51.8%) by non-MDR GNB. At multivariate analysis transfer from long-term care facility (OR 9.013, 95% CI 1.089-74.579, p = 0.041), hospitalization in the last 3 months (OR 2.882, 95% CI 1.580-5.259, p = 0.001), urinary catheter (OR 2.315, 95% CI 1.202-4.459, p = 0.012), antibiotic therapy in the last 3 months (OR 1.882, 95% CI 1.041-3.405, p = 0.036), age >= 75 years (OR 1.866, 95% CI 1.076-3.237, p = 0.026) were factors independently associated with MDR etiology. A score ranging from 0 to 10 was useful to recognize patients at lowest risk (0 points: Negative Likelihood Ratio 0.10) and those at highest risk (> 6 points, Positive Likelihood Ratio 11.8) of GNB bacteremia due to a MDR strain. Conclusions: Specific predictors of MDR etiology are useful to calculate probabilities of MDR etiology among hospitalized patients with blood cultures positive for GNB.

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

4.6
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