粪肠球菌与粪肠球菌血流感染的临床特征、诱发因素和预后:一项前瞻性多中心队列研究。

IF 3.7 3区 医学 Q2 INFECTIOUS DISEASES
Fenna Scharloo, Francesco Cogliati Dezza, Inmaculada López-Hernández, Pedro María Martínez Pérez-Crespo, Ane Josune Goikoetxea Aguirre, María Teresa Pérez-Rodríguez, Jonathan Fernandez-Suarez, Eva León Jiménez, Miguel Ángel Morán Rodríguez, Isabel Fernández-Natal, José María Reguera Iglesias, Clara Natera Kindelán, Maria Carmen Fariñas Álvares, Lucía Boix-Palop, Luis Eduardo Lopez-Cortes, Jesús Rodríguez-Baño
{"title":"粪肠球菌与粪肠球菌血流感染的临床特征、诱发因素和预后:一项前瞻性多中心队列研究。","authors":"Fenna Scharloo, Francesco Cogliati Dezza, Inmaculada López-Hernández, Pedro María Martínez Pérez-Crespo, Ane Josune Goikoetxea Aguirre, María Teresa Pérez-Rodríguez, Jonathan Fernandez-Suarez, Eva León Jiménez, Miguel Ángel Morán Rodríguez, Isabel Fernández-Natal, José María Reguera Iglesias, Clara Natera Kindelán, Maria Carmen Fariñas Álvares, Lucía Boix-Palop, Luis Eduardo Lopez-Cortes, Jesús Rodríguez-Baño","doi":"10.1007/s10096-024-04917-5","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purposes: </strong>Enterococcal BSI is associated with significant morbidity and mortality, with fatality rates of approximately 20-30%. There are microbiological and clinical differences between E. faecalis and E. faecium infections. The aim of this study was to investigate differences in predisposing factors for E. faecalis and E. faecium BSI and to explore prognostic factors.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This study was a post-hoc analysis of PROBAC, a Spanish prospective, multicenter, cohort in 2016-2017. Patients with E. faecalis or E. faecium BSI were eligible. Independent predictors for BSI development in polymicrobial and monomicrobial BSI and in-hospital mortality in the monomicrobial group were identified by logistic regression.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 431 patients were included. Independent factors associated with E. faecium BSI were previous use of penicillins (aOR 1.99 (95% CI 1.20-3.32)) or carbapenems (2.35 (1.12-4.93)), hospital-acquired BSI (2.58 (1.61-4.12)), and biliary tract source (3.36 (1.84-6.13)), while congestive heart failure (0.51 (0.27-0.97)), cerebrovascular disease (0.45 (0.21-0.98)), and urinary tract source (0.49 (0.26-0.92)) were associated with E. faecalis BSI. Independent prognostic factors for in-hospital mortality in E. faecalis BSI were Charlson Comorbidity Index (1.27 (1.08-1.51)), SOFA score (1.47 (1.24-1.73)), age (1.06 (1.02-1.10)), and urinary/biliary source (0.29 (0.09-0.90)). For E. faecium BSI, only SOFA score (1.34 (1.14-1.58) was associated with in-hospital mortality.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The factors associated with E. faecium and E. faecalis BSI are different. These variables may be helpful in the suspicion of one or other species for empiric therapeutic decisions and provide valuable information on prognosis.</p>","PeriodicalId":11782,"journal":{"name":"European Journal of Clinical Microbiology & Infectious Diseases","volume":" ","pages":"2011-2022"},"PeriodicalIF":3.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11405461/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Clinical characteristics, predisposing factors and outcomes for Enterococcus faecalis versus Enterococcus faecium bloodstream infections: a prospective multicentre cohort study.\",\"authors\":\"Fenna Scharloo, Francesco Cogliati Dezza, Inmaculada López-Hernández, Pedro María Martínez Pérez-Crespo, Ane Josune Goikoetxea Aguirre, María Teresa Pérez-Rodríguez, Jonathan Fernandez-Suarez, Eva León Jiménez, Miguel Ángel Morán Rodríguez, Isabel Fernández-Natal, José María Reguera Iglesias, Clara Natera Kindelán, Maria Carmen Fariñas Álvares, Lucía Boix-Palop, Luis Eduardo Lopez-Cortes, Jesús Rodríguez-Baño\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s10096-024-04917-5\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Purposes: </strong>Enterococcal BSI is associated with significant morbidity and mortality, with fatality rates of approximately 20-30%. There are microbiological and clinical differences between E. faecalis and E. faecium infections. The aim of this study was to investigate differences in predisposing factors for E. faecalis and E. faecium BSI and to explore prognostic factors.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This study was a post-hoc analysis of PROBAC, a Spanish prospective, multicenter, cohort in 2016-2017. Patients with E. faecalis or E. faecium BSI were eligible. Independent predictors for BSI development in polymicrobial and monomicrobial BSI and in-hospital mortality in the monomicrobial group were identified by logistic regression.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 431 patients were included. Independent factors associated with E. faecium BSI were previous use of penicillins (aOR 1.99 (95% CI 1.20-3.32)) or carbapenems (2.35 (1.12-4.93)), hospital-acquired BSI (2.58 (1.61-4.12)), and biliary tract source (3.36 (1.84-6.13)), while congestive heart failure (0.51 (0.27-0.97)), cerebrovascular disease (0.45 (0.21-0.98)), and urinary tract source (0.49 (0.26-0.92)) were associated with E. faecalis BSI. Independent prognostic factors for in-hospital mortality in E. faecalis BSI were Charlson Comorbidity Index (1.27 (1.08-1.51)), SOFA score (1.47 (1.24-1.73)), age (1.06 (1.02-1.10)), and urinary/biliary source (0.29 (0.09-0.90)). For E. faecium BSI, only SOFA score (1.34 (1.14-1.58) was associated with in-hospital mortality.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The factors associated with E. faecium and E. faecalis BSI are different. These variables may be helpful in the suspicion of one or other species for empiric therapeutic decisions and provide valuable information on prognosis.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":11782,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"European Journal of Clinical Microbiology & Infectious Diseases\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"2011-2022\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-10-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11405461/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"European Journal of Clinical Microbiology & Infectious Diseases\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10096-024-04917-5\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/8/8 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"INFECTIOUS DISEASES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Journal of Clinical Microbiology & Infectious Diseases","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10096-024-04917-5","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/8/8 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"INFECTIOUS DISEASES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:肠球菌 BSI 与严重的发病率和死亡率有关,致死率约为 20-30%。粪肠球菌感染和粪肠球菌感染在微生物学和临床上存在差异。本研究旨在调查粪肠球菌和粪肠球菌 BSI 易感因素的差异,并探讨预后因素:本研究是对2016-2017年西班牙前瞻性多中心队列PROBAC的事后分析。粪肠球菌或粪肠球菌BSI患者均符合条件。通过逻辑回归确定了多菌型和单菌型BSI发生的独立预测因素以及单菌型组的院内死亡率:结果:共纳入 431 名患者。与粪大肠杆菌 BSI 相关的独立因素有:既往使用青霉素类(aOR 1.99(95% CI 1.20-3.32))或碳青霉烯类(2.35(1.12-4.93))、医院获得性 BSI(2.58(1.61-4.12))和胆道来源(3.36(1.84-6.13)),而充血性心力衰竭(0.51(0.27-0.97))、脑血管疾病(0.45(0.21-0.98))和尿路来源(0.49(0.26-0.92))与粪大肠杆菌 BSI 相关。粪肠球菌 BSI 住院死亡率的独立预后因素为夏尔森合并症指数(1.27 (1.08-1.51))、SOFA 评分(1.47 (1.24-1.73))、年龄(1.06 (1.02-1.10))和尿路/胆道来源(0.29 (0.09-0.90))。就粪大肠杆菌 BSI 而言,只有 SOFA 评分(1.34(1.14-1.58))与院内死亡率相关:结论:与粪大肠杆菌和屎大肠杆菌 BSI 相关的因素各不相同。结论:与粪大肠杆菌和屎大肠杆菌 BSI 相关的因素各不相同,这些变量可能有助于怀疑其中一种或另一种大肠杆菌,从而做出经验性治疗决定,并为预后提供有价值的信息。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

Clinical characteristics, predisposing factors and outcomes for Enterococcus faecalis versus Enterococcus faecium bloodstream infections: a prospective multicentre cohort study.

Clinical characteristics, predisposing factors and outcomes for Enterococcus faecalis versus Enterococcus faecium bloodstream infections: a prospective multicentre cohort study.

Purposes: Enterococcal BSI is associated with significant morbidity and mortality, with fatality rates of approximately 20-30%. There are microbiological and clinical differences between E. faecalis and E. faecium infections. The aim of this study was to investigate differences in predisposing factors for E. faecalis and E. faecium BSI and to explore prognostic factors.

Methods: This study was a post-hoc analysis of PROBAC, a Spanish prospective, multicenter, cohort in 2016-2017. Patients with E. faecalis or E. faecium BSI were eligible. Independent predictors for BSI development in polymicrobial and monomicrobial BSI and in-hospital mortality in the monomicrobial group were identified by logistic regression.

Results: A total of 431 patients were included. Independent factors associated with E. faecium BSI were previous use of penicillins (aOR 1.99 (95% CI 1.20-3.32)) or carbapenems (2.35 (1.12-4.93)), hospital-acquired BSI (2.58 (1.61-4.12)), and biliary tract source (3.36 (1.84-6.13)), while congestive heart failure (0.51 (0.27-0.97)), cerebrovascular disease (0.45 (0.21-0.98)), and urinary tract source (0.49 (0.26-0.92)) were associated with E. faecalis BSI. Independent prognostic factors for in-hospital mortality in E. faecalis BSI were Charlson Comorbidity Index (1.27 (1.08-1.51)), SOFA score (1.47 (1.24-1.73)), age (1.06 (1.02-1.10)), and urinary/biliary source (0.29 (0.09-0.90)). For E. faecium BSI, only SOFA score (1.34 (1.14-1.58) was associated with in-hospital mortality.

Conclusions: The factors associated with E. faecium and E. faecalis BSI are different. These variables may be helpful in the suspicion of one or other species for empiric therapeutic decisions and provide valuable information on prognosis.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
10.40
自引率
2.20%
发文量
138
审稿时长
1 months
期刊介绍: EJCMID is an interdisciplinary journal devoted to the publication of communications on infectious diseases of bacterial, viral and parasitic origin.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信