4.4 Article

CT differentiation of pyogenic liver abscesses caused by Klebsiella pneumoniae vs non-Klebsiella pneumoniae

期刊

BRITISH JOURNAL OF RADIOLOGY
卷 84, 期 1002, 页码 518-525

出版社

BRITISH INST RADIOLOGY
DOI: 10.1259/bjr/23004588

关键词

-

资金

  1. Ministry for Health, Welfare, and Family Affairs, Republic of Korea [A091047]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: Klebsiella pneumoniae is one of the organisms most commonly isolated from pyogenic liver abscesses in Asian populations. We compared CT findings in liver abscesses caused by K. pneumoniae with those caused by other bacterial pathogens. Methods: Of 214 patients with liver abscesses examined over a 5 year period, 129 patients with positive blood or aspirate cultures were enrolled. The patients were divided into two groups: the K. pneumoniae monomicrobial liver abscess (KLA) group (n=59) and the non-K. pneumoniae monomicrobial or polymicrobial liver abscess (non-KLA) group (n=70). Two radiologists blinded to the culture results evaluated the CT images, recording the number, size, location and configuration of abscesses, the thickness of the abscess wall, the pattern of rim enhancement, septal enhancement, the double target sign, internal necrotic debris, internal gas bubbles and underlying biliary disease. The presence of diabetes and metastatic infection was also compared between groups. Statistical analyses were performed using univariate (Student's t-test and chi(2) test) and multivariate analyses. Results: Multivariate analysis showed that a thin wall, necrotic debris, metastatic infection and the absence of underlying biliary disease were the most significant predictors of KLA. When three of the four criteria were used in combination, a specificity of 98.6% was achieved for the diagnosis of KLA. Conclusion: A thin-walled abscess, internal necrotic debris, the presence of metastatic infection and the absence of underlying biliary disease may be useful CT findings in the early diagnosis of K. pneumoniae liver abscesses.

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