4.7 Article

Epidemiology of infective endocarditis in Tunisia: a 10-year multicenter retrospective study

期刊

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijid.2006.10.006

关键词

infective endocarditis; native valve; rheumatic fever; staphylococcus; streptococcus; negative blood cultures; mortality

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Since the first description of infective endocarditis, the profile of the disease has evolved continuously with stable incidence. However, epidemiological features are different in developing countries compared with western countries. Objective: To describe epidemiological, microbiological and outcome characteristics of infective endocarditis in Tunisia. Patients and methods: This was a descriptive multicenter retrospective study of inpatients treated for infective endocarditis from 1991 to 2000. Charts of patients with possible or definite infective endocarditis according to the Duke criteria were included in the study. Results: Four hundred and forty episodes of infective endocarditis among 435 patients (242 males, 193 females; mean (SD) age = 32.4 (16.8) years, range 1-78 years) were reviewed. The most common predisposing heart disease was rheumatic valvular disease (45.2%). Infective endocarditis occurred on prosthetic valves in 17.3% of cases. Causative microorganisms were identified in 50.2% of cases: streptococci (17.3%), enterococci (3.9%), staphylococci (17.9%), and other pathogens (11.1%). Blood cultures were negative in 53.6% and no microorganism was identified in 49.8%. Early valve surgery was performed in 51.2% of patients. The in-hospital mortality was 20.6%. Conclusion: Infective endocarditis is still frequently associated with rheumatic disease among young adults in Tunisia, with a high frequency of negative blood cultures and high in-hospital mortality, given that the population affected is relatively young. (C) 2007 International Society for Infectious Diseases. 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

4.7
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