Clinical retrospective analysis of Klebsiella pneumoniae bloodstream infection

Shu-zhen Xu, Si-yu Yang, Chen Chen, S. Weng, Xiaofei Jiang, Hong Liu, S. Chen, Wenhong Zhang
{"title":"Clinical retrospective analysis of Klebsiella pneumoniae bloodstream infection","authors":"Shu-zhen Xu, Si-yu Yang, Chen Chen, S. Weng, Xiaofei Jiang, Hong Liu, S. Chen, Wenhong Zhang","doi":"10.3760/CMA.J.ISSN.1000-6680.2018.11.003","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Objective \nTo explore the clinical characteristics, drug resistance and prognosis of Klebsiella pneumoniae bloodstream infection (KP-BSI), and to analyze the risk factors of death and drug resistance. \n \n \nMethods \nThe clinical data of hospitalized patients with KP-BSI from April 2015 to April 2017 in Huashan Hospital were retrospectively analyzed. Continuous variables were compared using t test. Categorical variables were compared using χ2 test or Fisher exact test. The independent risk factors for death were determined by logistic regression model. \n \n \nResults \nThe majority of the 74 patients with KP-BSI were male (67.6%) and elderly patients (78.4%). Nosocomial infection occurred in 58 cases (78.4%) and a total of 24 (32.4%) cases died. The patients were widely distributed in various departments of the hospital. The first was the Department of Infectious Diseases (29.7%), followed by the intensive care unit (23.0%). The patients were often complicated with various underlying diseases and the most common was pulmonary infection (56.8%). There were 45 (60.8%) multiple drug resistance (MDR) strains and 29 (39.2%) Carbapenems resistant Klebsiella pneumoniae (CRKP) strains. There were significant differences of nosocomial infections (χ2=4.655, P=0.031), deep venous catheters (χ2=5.432, P=0.02), and invasive mechanical ventilation (χ2=7.630, P=0.006) between MDR and non-MDR patients. Deep venous catheters (χ2=5.923, P=0.015), invasive mechanical ventilation (χ2=16.845, P=0.000), other catheters (χ2=4.009, P=0.045) and surgery (χ2=3.910, P=0.048) were all significantly different between CRKP and non-CRKP patients. APACHE Ⅱ scores were performed in all patients. The average APACHE Ⅱ score was 8.74±5.32 of the 50 cases (67.6%) in the survival group and that was 16.46 ± 6.62 of the 24 cases (32.4%) in the death group. The APACHE Ⅱ score in the survival group was significantly lower than that in the death group. The difference was statistically significant (t=5.091, P=0.000). APACHE Ⅱ≥15 was the independent factor of death (B =-2.708, P=0.000). \n \n \nConclusions \nThe situation of drug-resistant KP-BSI is severe in the clinic. According to the clinical data, nosocomial infections, invasive mechanical ventilation and deep venous catheters may be the risk factors for MDR bloodstream infection. Deep venous catheters, invasive mechanical ventilation, other catheters and surgery may be the risk factors for bloodstream infection with CRKP. APACHEⅡ≥15 is the independent risk factor for death. The evaluation of APACHE Ⅱ score may predict the prognosis of patients with bloodstream infection. \n \n \nKey words: \nKlebsiella pneumoniae; Risk factors; Bloodstream infection; Clinical features","PeriodicalId":10127,"journal":{"name":"中华传染病杂志","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2018-11-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"中华传染病杂志","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3760/CMA.J.ISSN.1000-6680.2018.11.003","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective To explore the clinical characteristics, drug resistance and prognosis of Klebsiella pneumoniae bloodstream infection (KP-BSI), and to analyze the risk factors of death and drug resistance. Methods The clinical data of hospitalized patients with KP-BSI from April 2015 to April 2017 in Huashan Hospital were retrospectively analyzed. Continuous variables were compared using t test. Categorical variables were compared using χ2 test or Fisher exact test. The independent risk factors for death were determined by logistic regression model. Results The majority of the 74 patients with KP-BSI were male (67.6%) and elderly patients (78.4%). Nosocomial infection occurred in 58 cases (78.4%) and a total of 24 (32.4%) cases died. The patients were widely distributed in various departments of the hospital. The first was the Department of Infectious Diseases (29.7%), followed by the intensive care unit (23.0%). The patients were often complicated with various underlying diseases and the most common was pulmonary infection (56.8%). There were 45 (60.8%) multiple drug resistance (MDR) strains and 29 (39.2%) Carbapenems resistant Klebsiella pneumoniae (CRKP) strains. There were significant differences of nosocomial infections (χ2=4.655, P=0.031), deep venous catheters (χ2=5.432, P=0.02), and invasive mechanical ventilation (χ2=7.630, P=0.006) between MDR and non-MDR patients. Deep venous catheters (χ2=5.923, P=0.015), invasive mechanical ventilation (χ2=16.845, P=0.000), other catheters (χ2=4.009, P=0.045) and surgery (χ2=3.910, P=0.048) were all significantly different between CRKP and non-CRKP patients. APACHE Ⅱ scores were performed in all patients. The average APACHE Ⅱ score was 8.74±5.32 of the 50 cases (67.6%) in the survival group and that was 16.46 ± 6.62 of the 24 cases (32.4%) in the death group. The APACHE Ⅱ score in the survival group was significantly lower than that in the death group. The difference was statistically significant (t=5.091, P=0.000). APACHE Ⅱ≥15 was the independent factor of death (B =-2.708, P=0.000). Conclusions The situation of drug-resistant KP-BSI is severe in the clinic. According to the clinical data, nosocomial infections, invasive mechanical ventilation and deep venous catheters may be the risk factors for MDR bloodstream infection. Deep venous catheters, invasive mechanical ventilation, other catheters and surgery may be the risk factors for bloodstream infection with CRKP. APACHEⅡ≥15 is the independent risk factor for death. The evaluation of APACHE Ⅱ score may predict the prognosis of patients with bloodstream infection. Key words: Klebsiella pneumoniae; Risk factors; Bloodstream infection; Clinical features
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
肺炎克雷伯菌血流感染的临床回顾性分析
目的探讨肺炎克雷伯菌血流感染(KP-BSI)的临床特点、耐药性及预后,分析死亡及耐药性的危险因素。方法对华山医院2015年4月至2017年4月收治的KP-BSI患者的临床资料进行回顾性分析。连续变量采用t检验进行比较。分类变量采用χ2检验或Fisher精确检验进行比较。采用逻辑回归模型确定死亡的独立危险因素。结果74例KP-BSI患者以男性(67.6%)和老年患者(78.4%)为主,其中医院感染58例(78.4%,死亡24例(32.4%)。病人分布在医院的各个科室。首先是传染病科(29.7%),其次是重症监护室(23.0%)。患者经常合并各种潜在疾病,最常见的是肺部感染(56.8%)。有45株(60.8%)耐多药菌株和29株(39.2%)耐碳青霉烯类肺炎克雷伯菌。耐多药和非耐多药患者在医院感染(χ2=4.655,P=0.031)、深静脉导管(χ2=5.432,P=0.02)和有创机械通气(χ2=7.630,P=0.006)方面存在显著差异。深静脉导管(χ2=5.923,P=0.015)、有创机械通气(χ2=16.845,P=0.000)、其他导管(χ0=4.009,P=0.045)和手术(χ2=3.910,P=0.048)在CRKP和非CRKP患者之间均存在显著差异。所有患者均进行APACHEⅡ评分。存活组的APACHEⅡ评分为8.74±5.32分(67.6%),死亡组为16.46±6.62分(32.4%)。存活组APACHEⅡ评分明显低于死亡组。两组比较差异有统计学意义(t=5.091,P=0.000),APACHEⅡ≥15为死亡的独立因素(B=-2.708,P=0.0000)。根据临床资料,医院感染、有创机械通气和深静脉导管可能是MDR血流感染的危险因素。深静脉导管、有创机械通气、其他导管和手术可能是CRKP血流感染的危险因素。APACHEⅡ≥15为死亡的独立危险因素。APACHEⅡ评分可预测血流感染患者的预后。关键词:肺炎克雷伯菌;风险因素;血流感染;临床特征
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
5280
期刊介绍:
期刊最新文献
Morphological characteristics of lung tissue in two cases with critical corona virus disease 2019 Establishing emergency medical system of classified treatment to alleviate the overload medical needs after the community outbreak of corona virus disease 2019 in Wuhan City Clinical analysis of nine cases with critical corona virus disease 2019 in Hainan province/ 中华传染病杂志 Clinical analysis of risk factors for severe patients with novel coronavirus pneumonia Exploration of digestive tract symptoms causesd by the novel coronavirus infection
×
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
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 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 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1