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

Base de dados
Ano de publicação
Tipo de documento
Intervalo de ano de publicação
1.
Transpl Infect Dis ; 16(6): 1019-23, 2014 Dec.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-25412764

RESUMO

Rhodococcus equi is an animal pathogen that causes infrequent but challenging infections in immunocompromised individuals, few of which have been described in solid organ transplant recipients. Common clinical presentations include indolent cough, fever, and dyspnea, with necrotizing pneumonia and cavitation. We report a case of a dense right upper lung pneumonia with resultant R. equi bacteremia in a renal transplant recipient. Our patient initially responded to antibiotic treatment with resolution of bacteremia and clinical recovery, followed by interval progression in her right upper lobe consolidation on follow-up computed tomography scans. She underwent lobectomy for definitive therapy with resolution of symptoms. Lobectomy can be utilized in isolated infection after antibiotic failure with excellent clinical outcomes.


Assuntos
Infecções por Actinomycetales/tratamento farmacológico , Infecções por Actinomycetales/microbiologia , Antibacterianos/uso terapêutico , Transplante de Rim/efeitos adversos , Pneumopatias/microbiologia , Rhodococcus equi/isolamento & purificação , Feminino , Humanos , Pulmão/microbiologia , Pulmão/patologia , Pulmão/cirurgia , Pneumopatias/cirurgia , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Falha de Tratamento
2.
Open Forum Infect Dis ; 8(8): ofab368, 2021 Aug.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-34458392

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: Antibiotic treatment decisions in severely ill patients must often be made in the absence of microbiologic results. The recently Food and Drug Administration-cleared BioFire FilmArray Pneumonia Panel (PN) detects 15 bacteria semiquantitatively, 3 atypical pneumonia bacteria, 8 viruses, and 7 antimicrobial resistance markers by multiplex PCR in ~1 hour in the laboratory. Previous reports have shown that the PN Panel bacterial detections are highly accurate, even when routine culture had no growth. METHODS: Consecutive bronchoalveolar lavage and endotracheal specimens submitted for culture between June and September 2018 from 270 patients with sufficient clinical and laboratory data were tested with the PN Panel. Patients were divided into 3 groups: (1) both culture and PN Panel positive, (2) PN Panel positive but culture uninformative (no growth or normal flora), and (3) patients with no PN Panel detections. RESULTS: Groups 1 and 2 had significantly higher maximum temperatures on the day of culture (P = .00036, analysis of variance [ANOVA] with Bonferroni correction), higher levels of an inflammatory response as measured by percent polymorphonuclear leukocytes in bronchoalveolar lavage (P = .00025, ANOVA with Bonferroni correction), and gram stain report of white blood cells, as previously reported [1]. CONCLUSIONS: Both group 1 (culture and PN Panel positive), and group 2 (PN Panel positive but culture uninformative) had higher levels of host response inflammatory responses compared with group 3, which had no targets detected, suggesting that PN Panel detections need to be interpreted in the clinical context, even if cultures are discordant. Depending on laboratory turnaround time, there could be opportunities for improved diagnosis and antibiotic stewardship.

SELEÇÃO DE REFERÊNCIAS
DETALHE DA PESQUISA