4.7 Review

Clinical management of Staphylococcus aureus bacteraemia

期刊

LANCET INFECTIOUS DISEASES
卷 11, 期 3, 页码 208-222

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/S1473-3099(10)70285-1

关键词

-

资金

  1. Novartis
  2. Special Trustees of the Hospital for Tropical Diseases, London, UK
  3. Wellcome Trust, UK
  4. Department of Health via the UK National Institute for Health Research (NIHR)
  5. Department of Health via the NIHR Biomedical Research Centre
  6. UK MRC
  7. NIHR Oxford BioMedical Research Centre
  8. University College London Comprehensive Biomedical Centre
  9. Department of Health's NIHR Biomedical Research Centres
  10. MRC [G0701652] Funding Source: UKRI
  11. National Institute for Health Research [ACF-2008-18-017, ACF-2007-27-002] Funding Source: researchfish

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Staphylococcus aureus bacteraemia is one of the most common serious bacterial infections worldwide. In the UK alone, around 12 500 cases each year are reported, with an associated mortality of about 30%, yet the evidence guiding optimum management is poor. To date, fewer than 1500 patients with S aureus bacteraemia have been recruited to 16 controlled trials of antimicrobial therapy. Consequently, clinical practice is driven by the results of observational studies and anecdote. Here, we propose and review ten unanswered clinical questions commonly posed by those managing S aureus bacteraemia. Our findings define the major areas of uncertainty in the management of S aureus bacteraemia and highlight just two key principles. First, all infective foci must be identified and removed as soon as possible. Second, long-term antimicrobial therapy is required for those with persistent bacteraemia or a deep, irremovable focus. Beyond this, the best drugs, dose, mode of delivery, and duration of therapy are uncertain, a situation compounded by emerging S aureus strains that are resistant to old and new antibiotics. We discuss the consequences on clinical practice, and how these findings define the agenda for future clinical research.

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