4.7 Article

The influence of metallo-β-lactamase production on mortality in nosocomial Pseudomonas aeruginosa infections

期刊

JOURNAL OF ANTIMICROBIAL CHEMOTHERAPY
卷 58, 期 2, 页码 387-392

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/jac/dkl239

关键词

P. aeruginosa; resistance; beta-lactamases; nosocomial infections

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objectives: To assess the effect of metallo-beta-lactamase (MBL) production on Pseudomonas aeruginosa nosocomial infection mortality and to identify the determinants of such effect. Methods: A cohort study of patients with A aeruginosa nosocomial infections was conducted at two teaching hospitals. MBL was detected by ceftazidime/2-mercaptopropionic disc approximation test and selected isolates were submitted to PCR using bla(SPM1) primer. Molecular typing was performed by DNA macrorestriction. To evaluate the influence of MBL on mortality a Cox proportional hazards model was performed using a hierarchized framework of the variables. Results: A total of 298 patients with A aeruginosa infections were included. Infections by MBL-carrying Pseudomonas aeruginosa (MBL-PA) resulted in higher in-hospital mortality than those by non-MBL-PA (51.2% versus 32.1%, respectively; relative risk 1.60, 95% CI 1.20-2.12) and higher mortality rates [17.3 per 1000 versus 11.8 per 1000 patient-days, respectively; hazard ratio (HR) 1.55, 95% CI 1.06-2.27]. In the final multivariate model, severe sepsis or septic shock [adjusted HR (AHR) 3.62, 95% CI 2.41-5.43], age (AHR 1.02, 95% CI 1.01-1.03) and use of appropriate therapy: 72 h (AHR 0.49, 95% CI 0.32-0.76) were significantly associated with mortality. Fourteen MBL-PA tested carried the bla(SPM-1) gene. Clonal dissemination was documented in both hospitals. Conclusions: MBL-PA infections resulted in higher mortality rates most likely related to the severity of these infections and less frequent early institution of appropriate antimicrobial therapy. Empirical treatments should be reviewed at institutions with high prevalence of MBL.

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