4.3 Article

One year prospective survey of Candida bloodstream infections in Scotland

期刊

JOURNAL OF MEDICAL MICROBIOLOGY
卷 56, 期 8, 页码 1066-1075

出版社

SOC GENERAL MICROBIOLOGY
DOI: 10.1099/jmm.0.47239-0

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A 12 month survey of candidaemia in Scotland, UK, in which every Scottish hospital laboratory submitted all blood isolates of yeasts for identification, strain typing and susceptibility testing, provided 300 isolates from 242 patients, generating incidence data of 4.8 cases per 100 000 population per year and 5.9 cases per 100 000 acute occupied bed days; 27.9 % of cases occurred in intensive care units. More than half the patients with candidaemia had an underlying disease involving the abdomen, 78 % had an indwelling intravenous catheter, 62 % had suffered a bacterial infection within the 2 weeks prior to candidaemia and 37 % had undergone a laparotomy. Candida albicans was the infecting species in 50 % of cases, followed by Candida glabrata (21 %) and Candida parapsilosis (12 %). Seven cases of candidaemia were caused by Candida dubliniensis, which was more prevalent even than Candida lusitaniae and Candida tropicalis (six cases each). Among C. glabrata isolates, 55 % showed reduced susceptibility to fluconazole, but azole resistance among other species was extremely low. Multilocus sequence typing showed isolates with high similarity came from different hospitals across the country, and many different types came from the hospitals that submitted [he most isolates, indicating no tendency towards hospital-specific endemic strains. Multiple isolates of C. albicans and C. glabrata from individual patients were of the same strain type with single exceptions for each species. The high prevalence of candidaemia in Scotland, relative to other population-based European studies, and the high level of reduced fluconazole susceptibility of Scottish C. glabrata isolates warrant continued future surveillance of invasive Candida infections.

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