4.5 Article

Intensive-care-unit-acquired bloodstream infections in a regional critically ill population

期刊

JOURNAL OF HOSPITAL INFECTION
卷 58, 期 2, 页码 137-145

出版社

W B SAUNDERS CO LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.jhin.2004.06.007

关键词

bloodstream infection; bacteraemia; intensive care unit; nosocomial infection; mortality

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Bloodstream infection (BSI) is a serious complication of critical illness but it is uncertain whether acquisition of BSI in the intensive care unit (ICU) increases the risk of death. A study was conducted among all Calgary health region (population similar to 1 million) adults admitted to ICUs for 48 h or more during a three-year period to investigate the occurrence, microbiology and risk factors for developing an ICU-acquired BSI and to determine whether these infections independently predict mortality. One hundred and ninety-nine ICU-acquired BSI episodes occurred during 4933 ICU admissions for a cumulative incidence of 4% and an incidence density of 5.4 per 1000 ICU days. The most common isolates were Staphylococcus aureus (18%), coagulase-negative staphylococci (11%), and Enterococcus faecalis (8%); 12% of infections were due to anti microbial- resistant bacteria. Admission to the regional neurosurgery/trauma ICU [odds ratio (OR) 2.86; 95% confidence interval (CI) 2.10-3.90] and increasing Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II (APACHE II) score (OR 1.05 per point, 95% CI 1.03-1.07) were associated with higher risk, whereas a surgical diagnosis (OR 0.69; 95% CI 0.52-0.93) was associated with lower risk of developing ICU-acquired BSI in logistic regression analysis. The crude in-hospital, death rate was 45% for patients with ICU-acquired BSI compared with 21% for those without (P < 0.0001). Development of an ICU-acquired BSI was an independent risk factor for death (OR 1.79; 95% CI 1.3-2.5) and increases the risk of dying from critical illness. (C) 2004 The Hospital Infection Society. Published by Elsevier Ltd. 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

4.5
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