4.5 Article

Clinical and microbiological characteristics of tigecycline non-susceptible Klebsiella pneumoniae bacteremia in Taiwan

期刊

BMC INFECTIOUS DISEASES
卷 14, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

BIOMED CENTRAL LTD
DOI: 10.1186/1471-2334-14-1

关键词

Antimicrobial resistance; Bacteremia; Clinical characteristics; Klebsiella pneumoniae; Tigecycline

资金

  1. Taipei Veterans General Hospital [V102B-022, V103B-016]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Resistance among Klebsiella pneumoniae to most antibiotics is on the rise. Tigecycline has been considered as one of the few therapeutic options available to treat multidrug-resistant bacteria. We investigated the clinical and microbiological characteristics of tigecycline non-susceptible K. pneumoniae bacteremia. Methods: Adult patients with tigecycline non-susceptible K. pneumoniae bacteremia at a medical center in Taiwan over a 3-year period were enrolled. K. pneumoniae isolates were identified by the E-test using criteria set by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Data on the clinical features of patients were collected from medical records. Genes for beta-lactamases, antimicrobial susceptibilities and pulsed-field gel electrophoresis (PFGE) results were determined for all isolates. Results: Of 36 patients, 27 had nosocomial bacteremia. Overall 28-day mortality was 38.9%. The MIC50 and MIC90 of tigecycline were 6 and 8 mg/L, respectively. No carbapenemase was detected among the 36 isolates. Twenty isolates carried extended spectrum beta-lactamases and/or DHA-1 genes. No major cluster of isolates was found among the 36 isolates by PFGE. Intensive care unit onset of tigecycline non-susceptible Klebsiella pneumoniae bacteremia was the only independent risk factor for 28-day mortality. Conclusions: The high mortality of patients with tigecycline non-susceptible K. pneumoniae bacteremia may suggest a critical problem. Further study to identify the possible risk factors for its development and further investigation of this type of bacteremia is necessary.

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

4.5
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