4.7 Article

Mortality following bacteraemic infection caused by extended spectrum beta-lactamase (ESBL) producing E-coli compared to non-ESBL producing E-coli

期刊

JOURNAL OF INFECTION
卷 55, 期 3, 页码 254-259

出版社

W B SAUNDERS CO LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.jinf.2007.04.007

关键词

ESBL producing E. coli; bacteraemia; mortality; death

资金

  1. Medical Research Council [G0601726] Funding Source: researchfish
  2. MRC [G0601726] Funding Source: UKRI
  3. Medical Research Council [G0601726] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objectives: To determine the differences in mortality and length of hospital stay in patients with bacteraemic infection caused by ESBL and non-ESBL producing Escherichia coli. Main outcome measures were mortality, time from bacteraemia to death and length of inpatient stay. Methods: From June 2003 to November 2005, we prospectively collected clinical and microbiological data on all adult patients with E. coli bacteraemia. Results: ESBL producing E. coli caused 16/242 (6.6%) community-acquired and 30/112 (26.8%) hospital-acquired bacteraemic infections. The most common sites of infection were urine 239/354 (67.5%) and bite 41/354 (11.6%). All ESBL producers were resistant to cephalosporins. Resistance to ciprofloxacin, trimethoprim, gentamicin and amikacin were 42/46 (91.3%), 39/46 (84.8%), 14/46 (30.4%) and 2/46 (4.3%), respectively. A significantly higher proportion of patients died following a bacteraemic infection caused by ESBL producing E. coli, 28/46 (60.8%), compared to non-ESBL producing E. coli, 73/308 (23.7%). The adjusted odds ratio for death was 3.57 (95% CI 1.48-8.60, p < 0.005). Delay in initiating an appropriate antibiotic was significantly associated with death and ESBL production. There was no significant difference between time from bacteraemia to death (median time 7 days (ESBL +ve group) vs 5 days (ESBL -ve group); p = 0.69) and, in those who survived, length of inpatient stay (median time 9 days (ESBL +ve group) vs 12 days (ESBL -ve group); p = 0.111).

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