Evidence Hub

Prospective multi-center evaluation on risk factors, clinical characteristics and outcomes due to carbapenem resistance in Acinetobacter baumannii complex bacteraemia: experience from the Chinese Antimicrobial Resistance Surveillance of Nosocomial Infections (CARES) Network

Yu-Dong Liu, Qi Wang, Chun-Jiang Zhao, Hong-Bin Chen, He-Nan Li, Hui Wang, on behalf of the CARES Network

Journal of Medical Microbiology, 2020

40 citations

Abstract

Introduction. Increasing evidence demonstrates unfavourable outcomes in bloodstream infections (BSI) due to the carbapenem-resistant Acinetobacter baumannii complex (CRAB).Aim. To investigate the differences in risk factors, clinical characteristics and outcomes in patients with A. baumannii complex BSI stratified by carbapenem resistance, a prospective multi-center study was conducted.Methodology. Information was collected in a predefined form. A total of 317 cases was included for comparison between CRAB BSI vs. carbapenem-susceptible A. baumannii complex (CSAB) BSI. Among these cases, 229 cases were defined as CRAB BSI and 88 cases as CSAB BSI.Results. Univariable analysis showed that male gender, underlying neurologic disease, prior carbapenems exposure, intensive care unit (ICU) stay, presence of central venous catheter, endotracheal intubation, tracheotomy, Foley catheter, nasogastric intubation, lower respiratory tract infections and catheter-related infections were more prevalent in CRAB BSI. Only male gender, prior carbapenems exposure and presence of endotracheal intubation persisted as independent risk factors for acquiring CRAB BSI. Patients with CRAB BSI displayed unfavourable outcomes characterized by failure of pathogen clearance, continuous fever, disease aggravation and higher incidence of 30-day all-cause mortality. Multivariate analysis demonstrated carbapenem resistance as an independent risk factor for 30-day all-cause mortality.Conclusion. Our findings…

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