4.3 Article

Burkholderia gladioli:: Five year experience in a cystic fibrosis and lung transplantation center

期刊

JOURNAL OF CYSTIC FIBROSIS
卷 6, 期 4, 页码 267-273

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.jcf.2006.10.007

关键词

cystic fibrosis; Burkholderia gladioli; lung transplantation; bronchiectasis

资金

  1. NCRR NIH HHS [U54 RR 019480, RR 00046] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: The impact of infection with Burkholderia gladioli in cystic fibrosis, other chronic airway diseases and immunosuppressed patients is unknown. Methods: A six-year retrospective review of all patients with B. gladioli infection was performed in a tertiary referral center with cystic fibrosis and lung transplantation programs. In addition, a targeted survey of all 251 lung transplant recipients was performed. Available B. gladioli isolates were analyzed via pulsed field gel electrophoresis. Results: Thirty-five patients were culture positive for B. gladioli, including 33 CF patients. No bacteremia was identified. Isolates were available in 18 patients and all were genetically distinct. Two-thirds of these isolates were susceptible to usual anti-pseudomonal antibiotics. After acquisition, only 40% of CF patients were chronically infected (>= 2 positive cultures separated by at least 6 months). Chronic infection was associated with resistance to >= 2 antibiotic groups on initial culture and failure of eradication after antibiotic therapy. The impact of acquisition of B. gladioli infection in chronic infection was variable. Three CF patients with chronic infection underwent lung transplantation. One post-transplant patient developed a B. gladioli mediastinal abscess, which was treated successfully. Conclusions: The majority of patients' culture positive for B. gladioli at our center have CF. B. gladioli infection is often transient and is compatible with satisfactory post-lung transplantation outcomes. (C) 2006 European Cystic Fibrosis Society. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

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