4.7 Article Proceedings Paper

Bloodstream infections in cancer patients with febrile neutropenia

期刊

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijantimicag.2008.06.017

关键词

Bacteraemia; Febrile neutropenia; Predictive laboratory markers

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Bloodstream infections (bacteraemia) account for approximately 25-30% of febrile episodes in patients with febrile neutropenia (FN). In developed countries, Gram-positive pathogens predominate. Mortality is higher in Gram-negative bacteraemia. A recent study involving 2142 patients with FN was reviewed, including 168 patients with Gram-negative bacteraemia (mortality 18%), 283 patients with Gram-positive bacteraemia (mortality 5%) and 48 patients with polymicrobial bacteraemia (mortality 13%). Among patients who received prophylactic antibiotics, Gram-positive bacteraemia was far more common than Gram-negative bacteraemia (75% vs. 25%), compared with approximately 50% of each in patients without prophylactic antibiotics. Patients with a Multinational Association for Supportive Care in Cancer (MASCC) score < 15 had a 36% mortality compared with 3% if the MASCC score was > 21. The MASCC score may help risk strati. cation of patients with FN and bacteraemia, although these data require confirmation. In two series of patients from developing countries (Lebanon and Malaysia), Gram-negative bacteraemia was more common and mortality was higher. In developing countries, Gram-negative bacteraemia may be more frequent due to less use of prophylactic antibiotics and central lines. Laboratory markers may have predictive and prognostic value for bacteraemia in patients at the onset of FN, including mannose-binding lectin, interleukin (IL)-6, IL-8 and procalcitonin, but further studies are required before they can be recommended. New therapies are required to lower the mortality in patients with FN with a high risk for bacteraemia. (c) 2008 Elsevier B.V. and the International Society of Chemotherapy. All rights reserved.

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