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










Intervalo de año de publicación
1.
Open Forum Infect Dis ; 11(3): ofae052, 2024 Mar.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38444817

RESUMEN

Background: Febrile neutropenia is a life-threatening condition commonly observed in patients with hematologic malignancies. The aim of this article is to provide updated knowledge about bloodstream infections in febrile neutropenia episodes within the Andean region of Latin America. Method: This retrospective study was based in 6 hospitals in Chile, Ecuador, and Peru and included adult patients with acute leukemia or lymphoma and febrile neutropenia between January 2019 and December 2020. Results: Of the 416 febrile neutropenia episodes, 38.7% had a bloodstream infection, 86% of which were caused by gram-negative rods, with Klebsiella pneumoniae, Escherichia coli, and Pseudomonas aeruginosa being the most frequently identified bacteria. K pneumoniae isolates were more frequently resistant than E coli to cefotaxime (65% vs 39.6%), piperacillin-tazobactam (56.7% vs 27.1%), and imipenem (35% vs 2.1%) and were more frequently multidrug resistant (61.7% vs 12.5%). Among P aeruginosa, 26.7% were resistant to ceftazidime, piperacillin-tazobactam, and imipenem, and 23.3% were multidrug resistant. Overall 30-day mortality was 19.8%, being higher with vs without a bloodstream infection (26.7% vs 15.3%, P = .005). Fever duration was also significantly longer, as well as periods of neutropenia and length of hospital stay for patients with bloodstream infection. Additionally, the 30-day mortality rate was higher for episodes with inappropriate vs appropriate empirical antibiotic therapy (41.2% vs 26.6%, P = .139). Conclusions: Considering the high rates of bacteria-resistant infection and 30-day mortality, it is imperative to establish strategies that reduce the frequency of bloodstream infections, increasing early identification of patients at higher risks of multidrug bacteria resistance, and updating existing empirical antibiotic recommendations.

2.
Rev. chil. infectol ; 40(4)ago. 2023.
Artículo en Español | LILACS-Express | LILACS | ID: biblio-1521852

RESUMEN

Antecedentes: El recuento de linfocitos CD4+ (LTCD4) es una herramienta fundamental para la evaluación y seguimiento de los pacientes que viven con VIH. En Chile, la medición de LTCD4 estandarizada es por citometría de flujo. En el sistema público se realiza en forma centralizada en tres centros. Actualmente existen tecnologías de medición rápida de recuento de LTCD4 en el lugar de atención, permitiendo optimizar la atención de pacientes con infección por VIH. Objetivo: Comparar la precisión de un test rápido de ejecución local versus la técnica estándar. Metodología: Realización de ambas técnicas en un grupo de 102 pacientes durante su control regular de salud. Resultados: El rango de variación promedio de los resultados entre las dos técnicas fue de 10%, con una concordancia en los recuentos de LTCD4 de 97% para el rango de CD4 < 200 cél/uL, de 88% para los pacientes con recuento de LTCD4 entre 200 y 349 cél/uL y de 67% en los rangos superiores. Conclusión: La técnica por test rápido es un sistema fácil de aplicar, de bajo costo, con alta concordancia con la técnica estándar, lo que debería considerarse en la atención de los pacientes que viven con VIH.


Background: The CD4+ lymphocyte cell count is an instrumental tool for the assessment and follow-up in the therapeutic management of patients living with HIV. In Chile, the standardized CD4+ lymphocyte count technique is by flow cytometry. In the public health system, it is performed centralized in 3 sites. Currently, there are technologies that allow measuring the CD4 lymphocyte count at the point of care, allowing to optimize the care of HIV-infected patients. Aim: To compare the accuracy of a point of care rapid test versus the standard technique in patients under regular care at a single HIV center. Results: The average variation of the results between the two techniques was 10%, with a 97% concordance in CD4 range values for patients with CD4 below 200 cells/uL, 88% for CD4 counts between 200 and 349 cells/uL. and 67% above that range. Conclusion: This point of care test is an easy-to-operate, low-cost system with high correlation with the standard technique and should be considered in the care of patients living with HIV.

SELECCIÓN DE REFERENCIAS
DETALLE DE LA BÚSQUEDA
...