Evidence Hub

Klebsiella bacteraemia: community versus nosocomial infection

Yinnon AM, Butnaru A, Raveh D, Jerassy Z, Rudensky B

QJM : monthly journal of the Association of Physicians, 1996

Abstract

In the period 1988-1993, 241 patients had Klebsiella bacteraemia at our medical centre. The annual number of patients with positive blood cultures increased from 306 in 1988 to 622 in 1993, representing a 4.5-6% positivity rate of drawn cultures. After E. coli, Klebsiella was the leading cause of Gram-negative bacteraemia. During this period, the absolute number of Klebsiella bacteraemia increased from 25 in 1988 to 84 in 1993; this represents a true increase in Klebsiellaa bacteraemia, from 6-7% of positive cultures in the late 1980s to 12-13% in more recent years. There were 210 cases with K. pneumoniae and 31 with K. oxytoca. A representative sample of 80 records was retrieved and subdivided into two groups: community-acquired Klebsiella bacteraemia (CAKB) vs. hospital-acquired Klebsiella bacteraemia (HAKB). Urinary tract infection was the underlying source of 58% of CAKB vs 28% of HAKB (p < 0.01); pneumonia occurred significantly more often in HAKB (25%) than in CAKB (7%) (p < 0.01). In HAKB, as compared to CAKB, serious manifestations of illness were more common, e.g. shock (65% vs. 37%, p < 0.046) and respiratory failure (45% vs. 20%, p < 0.046). Overall mortality was 32%, 22% of patients with CAKB died vs. 42% of those with HAKB (p < 0.05). Multiple drug resistance was very common: only 57% of all Klebsiella strains were susceptible to gentamicin, 66% to ceftriaxone, 70% to ciprofloxacin, and 83% to amikacin. The susceptibility rates of Klebsiella spp isolated from…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a cohort study, done in people. Its evidence level is 3 of 5 (Moderate · trial / cohort / secondary analysis). Trials without a large randomized design, cohorts and secondary analyses give moderate evidence.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free