Evidence Hub

Staphylococcus saccharolyticus infection: case series with a PRISMA-compliant systemic review

Wang P, Liu Y, Xu Y, Xu Z

Medicine, 2020

8 participants · 11 citations

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Staphylococcus saccharolyticus is a rare cause of human infectious disease. The clinical characteristics and treatment of patients with S saccharolyticus infections remain largely unknown.

OBJECTIVES: We present the first reported case of empyema due to S saccharolyticus. In addition, a systematic review and pooled analysis of all S saccharolyticus cases were done to summarize the clinical and microbiological characteristics and treatment of this rare pathogen.

METHODS: A case of empyema caused by S saccharolyticus diagnosed in study hospital was reported. This case and those identified from PubMed, EMBASE, and Web of Science were analyzed.

RESULTS: In total, 8 patients were reviewed. The averages of the white blood cell count, sedimentation rate, and C-reactive protein were 16.8 × 10/L, 72 mm/h, and 176 mg/L, respectively. The average time-to-positivity of the anaerobic cultures was 5 days. The S saccharolyticus was resistant to metronidazole, but susceptible to fluoroquinolones, clindamycin, and vancomycin in all the cases with drug sensitivity tests available for these antibiotics. Two of 7 patients showed resistance to all β-lactams. Both of those patients finally died.

CONCLUSIONS: S saccharolyticus should be added to the list of anaerobic microorganisms that are able to cause empyema. A prolonged anaerobic culture is critical to improve the yield of this possibly underestimated pathogen. The time to positive culture of S saccharolyticus may not help to…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a systematic review, done in people. Its evidence level is 1 of 5 (Highest · pooled evidence). Pooled evidence from several studies sits at the top of the evidence pyramid. Reported size: 8 participants or records.

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