Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 2 de 2
Filtrar
Más filtros

Banco de datos
Tipo del documento
País de afiliación
Intervalo de año de publicación
1.
Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis ; 43(9): 1741-1751, 2024 Sep.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38958809

RESUMEN

PURPOSE: Data on short courses of antibiotic therapy for Enterobacterales bacteremia in high-risk neutropenic patients are limited. The aim of the study was to describe and compare the frequency of bacteremia relapse, 30-day overall and infection-related mortality, Clostridiodes difficile infection and length of hospital stay since bacteremia among those who received antibiotic therapy for 7 or 14 days. METHODS: This is a multicenter, prospective, observational cohort study in adult high-risk neutropenic patients with hematologic malignancies or hematopoietic stem cell transplant and monomicrobial Enterobacterales bacteremia. They received appropriate empirical antibiotic therapy, had a clinical response within 7 days, and infection source control. Clinical, epidemiological and outcomes variables were compared based on 7 or 14 days of AT. RESULTS: Two hundred patients were included (100, 7-day antibiotic therapy; 100, 14-day antibiotic therapy). Escherichia coli was the pathogen most frequently isolated (47.5%), followed by Klebsiella sp. (40.5%). Among those patients that received 7-day vs. 14-day antibiotic course, a clinical source of bacteremia was found in 54% vs. 57% (p = 0.66), multidrug-resistant Enterobacterales isolates in 28% vs. 30% (p = 0.75), and 40% vs. 47% (p = 0.31) received combined empirical antibiotic therapy. Overall mortality was 3% vs. 1% (p = 0.62), in no case related to infection; bacteremia relapse was 7% vs. 2% (p = 0.17), and length of hospital stay since bacteremia had a median of 9 days (IQR: 7-15) vs. 14 days (IQR: 13-22) (p = < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: These data suggest that seven-day antibiotic therapy might be adequate for patients with high-risk neutropenia and Enterobacterales bacteremia, who receive appropriate empirical therapy, with clinical response and infection source control.


Asunto(s)
Antibacterianos , Bacteriemia , Infecciones por Enterobacteriaceae , Neutropenia , Humanos , Bacteriemia/tratamiento farmacológico , Bacteriemia/microbiología , Bacteriemia/mortalidad , Antibacterianos/uso terapéutico , Antibacterianos/administración & dosificación , Masculino , Femenino , Persona de Mediana Edad , Estudios Prospectivos , Neutropenia/complicaciones , Infecciones por Enterobacteriaceae/tratamiento farmacológico , Infecciones por Enterobacteriaceae/mortalidad , Infecciones por Enterobacteriaceae/microbiología , Adulto , Anciano , Enterobacteriaceae/efectos de los fármacos , Resultado del Tratamiento , Tiempo de Internación , Neoplasias Hematológicas/complicaciones , Adulto Joven
2.
Microorganisms ; 12(1)2024 Jan 18.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38258022

RESUMEN

Few studies have evaluated the efficacy of ceftazidime-avibactam (CA) for Klebsiella pneumoniae carbapenemase-producing Enterobacterales bacteremia (KPC-PEB) in high-risk neutropenic patients. This is a prospective multicenter observational study in high-risk neutropenic patients with multi-drug resistant Enterobacterales bacteremia. They were compared according to the resistance mechanism and definitive treatment provided: KPC-CPE treated with CA (G1), KPC-CPE treated with other antibiotics (G2), and patients with ESBL-producing Enterobacterales bacteremia who received appropriate definitive therapy (G3). Thirty-day mortality was evaluated using a logistic regression model, and survival was analyzed with Kaplan-Meier curves. A total of 238 patients were included: 18 (G1), 52 (G2), and 168 (G3). Klebsiella spp. (60.9%) and Escherichia coli (26.4%) were the Enterobacterales most frequently isolated, and 71% of the bacteremias had a clinical source. The resistance profile between G1 and G2 was colistin 35.3% vs. 36.5%, amikacin 16.7% vs. 40.4%, and tigeclycline 11.1% vs. 19.2%. The antibiotics prescribed in combination with G2 were carbapenems, colistin, amikacin, fosfomycin, tigecycline, and fluoroquinolones. Seven-day clinical response in G1 vs. G2 vs. G3 was 94.4% vs. 42.3% vs. 82.7%, respectively (p < 0.001). Thirty-day overall mortality in G1 vs. G2 vs. G3 was 22.2% vs. 53.8% vs. 11.9%, respectively (p < 0.001), and infection-related mortality was 5.5% vs. 51.9% vs. 7.7% (p < 0.001). The independent risk factors for mortality were Pitt score > 4: OR 3.63, 95% CI, 1.18-11.14 (p = 0.025) and KPC-PEB treated with other antibiotics: OR 8.85, 95% CI, 2.58-30.33 (p = 0.001), while 7-day clinical response was a protective factor for survival: OR 0.02, 95% CI, 0.01-0.08 (p < 0.001). High-risk neutropenic patients with KPC-CPE treated with CA had an outcome similar to those treated for ESBL-producing Enterobacterales, with higher 7-day clinical response and lower overall and infection-related mortality than those treated with other antibiotics. In view of these data, CA may be considered the preferred therapeutic option for KPC-PEB in high-risk neutropenic patients.

SELECCIÓN DE REFERENCIAS
DETALLE DE LA BÚSQUEDA