4.4 Article Proceedings Paper

The impact of methicillin-resistance in Staphylococcus aureus bacteremia on patient outcomes:: Mortality, length of stay, and hospital charges

期刊

INFECTION CONTROL AND HOSPITAL EPIDEMIOLOGY
卷 26, 期 2, 页码 166-174

出版社

CAMBRIDGE UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1086/502522

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the impact of methicillin resistance in Staphylococcus aureus on mortality, length of hospitalization, and hospital charges. DESIGN: A cohort study of patients admitted to the hospital between July 1, 1997, and June 1, 2000, who had clinically significant S. aureus bloodstream infections. SETTING: A 630-bed, urban, tertiary-care teaching hospital in Boston, Massachusetts. PATIENTS: Three hundred forty-eight patients with S. aureus bacteremia were studied; 96 patients had methicillin-resistant S. aureus (MRSA). Patients with methicillin-susceptible S. aureus (MSSA) and MRSA were similar regarding gender, percentage of nosocomial acquisition, length of hospitalization, ICU admission, and surgery before S. aureus bacteremia. They differed regarding age, comorbidities, and illness severity score. RESULTS: Similar numbers of MRSA and MSSA patients died (22.9% vs 19.8%; P = .53). Both the median length of hospitalization after S. aureus bacteremia for patients who survived and the median hospital charges after S. aureus bacteremia were significantly increased in MRSA patients (7 vs 9 days, P = .045; $19,212 vs $26,424, P = .008). After multivariable analysis, compared with MSSA bacteremia, MRSA bacteremia remained associated with increased length of hospitalization (1.29 fold; P = .016) and hospital charges (1.36 fold; P = .017). MRSA bacteremia had a median attributable length of stay of 2 days and a median attributable hospital charge of $6,916. CONCLUSION: Methicillin resistance in S. aureus bacteremia is associated with significant increases in length of hospitalization and hospital charges (Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2005;26:166-174).

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

4.4
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