4.5 Article

Community-acquired versus nosocomial Klebsiella pneumoniae bacteremia:: Clinical features, treatment outcomes, and clinical implication of antimicrobial resistance

期刊

JOURNAL OF KOREAN MEDICAL SCIENCE
卷 21, 期 5, 页码 816-822

出版社

KOREAN ACAD MEDICAL SCIENCES
DOI: 10.3346/jkms.2006.21.5.816

关键词

Klebsielle prieumoniae; bacteremia; treatment outcome; risk factors; drug resistance; microbial

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We conducted this study to compare clinical features, outcomes, and clinical implication of antimicrobial resistance in Klebsiella pneumoniae bacteremia acquired as community vs. nosocomial infection. A total of 377 patients with K pneumoniae bacteremia (191 community-acquired and 186 nosocomial) were retrospectively analyzed. Neoplastic diseases (hematologic malignancy and solid tumor, 56%) were the most commonly associated conditions in patients with nosocomial bacteremia, whereas chronic liver disease (35%) and diabetes mellitus (20%) were the most commonly associated conditions in patients with community-acquired bacteremia. Bacteremic liver abscess occurred almost exclusively in patients with community-acquired infection. The overall 30-day mortality was 24% (91/377), and the mortality of nosocomial bacteremia was significantly higher than that of community-acquired bacteremia (32% vs. 16%, p < 0.001). Of all community-acquired and nosocomial isolates, 4% and 33%, respectively, were extended-spectrum cephalosporin (ESC)resistant, and 4% and 21%, respectively, were ciprofloxacin (CIP)-resistant. In nosocomial infections, prior uses of ESC and CIP were found to be independent risk factors for ESC and CIP resistance, respectively. Significant differences were identified between community-acquired and nosocomial K pneumoniae bacteremia, and the mortality of nosocomial infections was more than twice than that of community-acquired infections. Antimicrobial resistance was a widespread nosocomial problem and also identified in community-acquired 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

4.5
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