4.7 Article

The changing epidemiology of Staphylococcus aureus bloodstream infection: a multinational population-based surveillance study

期刊

CLINICAL MICROBIOLOGY AND INFECTION
卷 19, 期 5, 页码 465-471

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1111/j.1469-0691.2012.03903.x

关键词

Bacteraemia; incidence; population; secular trends

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Although the epidemiology of Staphylococcus aureus bloodstream infection (BSI) has been changing, international comparisons are lacking. We sought to determine the incidence of S.aureus BSI and assess trends over time and by region. Population-based surveillance was conducted nationally in Finland and regionally in Canberra, Australia, western Sweden, and three areas in each of Canada and Denmark during 20002008. Incidence rates were age-standardized and gender-standardized to the EU 27-country 2007 population. During 83million person-years of surveillance, 18430 episodes of S.aureus BSI were identified. The overall annual incidence rate for S.aureus BSI was 26.1 per 100000 population, and those for methicillin-sensitive S.aureus (MSSA) and methicillin-resistant S.aureus (MRSA) were 24.2 and 1.9 per 100000, respectively. Although the overall incidence of community-onset MSSA BSI (15.0 per 100000) was relatively similar across regions, the incidence rates of hospital-onset MSSA (9.2 per 100000), community-onset MRSA (1.0 per 100000) and hospital-onset MRSA (0.8 per 100000) BSI varied substantially. Whereas the overall incidence of S.aureus BSI did not increase over the study period, there was an increase in the incidence of MRSA BSI. Major changes in the occurrence of community-onset and hospital-onset MSSA and MRSA BSI occurred, but these varied significantly among regions, even within the same country. Although major changes in the epidemiology of community-onset and hospital-onset MSSA and MRSA BSIs are occurring, this multinational population-based study did not find that the overall incidence of S.aureus BSI is increasing.

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