4.5 Article Proceedings Paper

Bloodstream infections among human immunodeficiency virus-infected adult patients:: epidemiology and risk factors for mortality

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s10096-008-0531-5

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study was undertaken to describe the epidemiology and sensitivity pattern of pathogens causing community-acquired (CA) and nosocomial (N) bloodstream infection (BSI) in adult HIV-infected patients and to establish risk factors for mortality. The type of study was a retrospective analysis of BSI episodes prospectively collected through a blood culture surveillance program from January 1991 to December 2006. We used non-conditional logistic regression methods with death as a dependent variable. One thousand and seventy-seven episodes of BSI (6%) occurred in HIV-infected patients out of 16,946 episodes during the period of study. CA and N BSI were 634 (59%) and 443 (41%) respectively. S. pneumoniae and S. aureus were the most frequent pathogens (n=279, 44%) in CA BSI. Coagulase-negative staphylococci and S. aureus were the most frequent micro-organisms isolated in N cases (n=169, 38%). Cotrimoxazole resistance was common in CA and N BSI and was caused by gram-negative bacilli (50% and 61% respectively). However, resistance rates to ceftriaxone were low (3%). Crude mortality accounted for 140 cases (13%). The independent risk factors associated with mortality were: liver cirrhosis (OR: 2.90, p=0.001), corticosteroids treatment (OR: 3.51, p < 0.001), neutropenia (OR: 2.21, p=0.02), inappropriate empirical therapy (OR: 2.44, p=0.006), and isolate of C. albicans (OR: 7.58, p=0.010). BSI in adult HIV-infected patients was often caused by gram-positive pathogens in both CA and N settings. Inappropriate empirical therapy and the presence of other immunosuppressive factors were independent risk factors for mortality. Ceftriaxone could be used as the initial empiric therapy for HIV-infected patients with suspected CA BSI.

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