4.5 Article

Risk factors and epidemiologic predictors of blood stream infections with New Delhi Metallo-b-lactamase (NDM-1) producing Enterobacteriaceae

期刊

EPIDEMIOLOGY AND INFECTION
卷 147, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

CAMBRIDGE UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1017/S0950268819000256

关键词

Bloodstream infections; carbapenem-resistant Enterobacteriaceae; Klebsiella; NDM-1; risk factors

资金

  1. Center for Global Health within the Colorado School of Public Health

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Carbapenem-resistant Enterobacteriaceae conferred by New Delhi metallo-b-lactamase (NDM-1) resistance mechanism are endemic in India and Southeast Asia. An understanding of risk factors for NDM-1 infections is necessary to guide prevention strategies. We performed a retrospective case-control study of patients admitted at Christian Medical College Hospital, Vellore, India between May 2010 and August 2014 with Klebsiella pneumoniae blood stream infection (BSI). We compared patients with BSI caused by NDM-1 producing strains to two control groups: BSI with other multidrug resistant (MDR) strains and BSI with pan-susceptible strains. The study groups were assessed for risk factors for the outcomes: (1) infection with any MDR strain compared to pan-susceptible; and, (2) infection with NDM-1 strain as compared with other MDR and (3) Mortality. A total of 101 patients with BSI with NDM-1 producing Klebsiella pneumoniae were matched to two groups of controls: 112 with non-NDM-1 MDR strains and 101 with pan-susceptible strains. Medical (OR 10.4) and neonatal (OR 0.7) ICU admission, central venous catheter placement (CVC, OR 7.4) predicted MDR BSI. Prior carbapenem use (OR 8.4) and CVC (OR 4.8) predicted acquisition of an NDM-1 strain. Significant predictors for mortality included ICU stay (OR 3.0), mechanical ventilation (OR 3.2), female gender (OR 2.2), diabetes (OR 0.4). CVC placement, prior carbapenem use and ICU admission were significantly associated with BSI with NDM-1 producing and other MDR strains.

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