Anaerobe · 2023
Differences between bloodstream infections involving Gram-positive and Gram-negative anaerobes.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Cobo Fernando, Pérez-Carrasco Virginia, Rodríguez-Granger Javier, Sampedro-Martínez Antonio, García-Salcedo José Antonio, Navarro-Marí José María
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: The objectives of this study were to describe differences between bloodstream infections involving Gram-positive (GP) and Gram-negative (GN) anaerobic bacteria.
METHODS: Patients with clinically significant anaerobic bacteremia detected between October 2016 and July 2022 in a tertiary hospital in Granada (Spain) were retrospectively included. Species identification was performed by MALDI-TOF MS and/or molecular methods. The association between variables was analyzed using contingency tables, applying the chi-square test when expected frequencies were adequate and the Fisher exact test when not. Variables were gathered at the time of the first positive blood culture.
RESULTS: Out of 237 cases of anaerobic bloodstream infections detected, 127 (53.6%) were GN. Crude mortality was 20.3%, corresponding to 48 patients who died of causes directly attributable to bacteremia. The presence of malignant disease (p = 0.011), abdominal and/or pelvic surgery (p = 0.001), and transplantation (p = 0.008) were significantly associated with bacteremia due to GN bacteria, while the presence of diabetes mellitus was significantly associated with bacteremia due to GP bacteria (p = 0.022). The presence of both septic shock and mortality was more frequently associated with bacteremia due to GN versus GP bacteria.
CONCLUSIONS: The association of certain variables with the presence of bloodstream infections due to GP or GN anaerobic bacteria may assist in selecting the optimal empirical therapeutic approach and improving the outcome of patients with these types of infection.
METHODS: Patients with clinically significant anaerobic bacteremia detected between October 2016 and July 2022 in a tertiary hospital in Granada (Spain) were retrospectively included. Species identification was performed by MALDI-TOF MS and/or molecular methods. The association between variables was analyzed using contingency tables, applying the chi-square test when expected frequencies were adequate and the Fisher exact test when not. Variables were gathered at the time of the first positive blood culture.
RESULTS: Out of 237 cases of anaerobic bloodstream infections detected, 127 (53.6%) were GN. Crude mortality was 20.3%, corresponding to 48 patients who died of causes directly attributable to bacteremia. The presence of malignant disease (p = 0.011), abdominal and/or pelvic surgery (p = 0.001), and transplantation (p = 0.008) were significantly associated with bacteremia due to GN bacteria, while the presence of diabetes mellitus was significantly associated with bacteremia due to GP bacteria (p = 0.022). The presence of both septic shock and mortality was more frequently associated with bacteremia due to GN versus GP bacteria.
CONCLUSIONS: The association of certain variables with the presence of bloodstream infections due to GP or GN anaerobic bacteria may assist in selecting the optimal empirical therapeutic approach and improving the outcome of patients with these types of infection.