Evidence Hub

Klebsiella pneumoniae septic pulmonary embolism from renal vein thrombosis

Nojo M, Ohta S, Fukuda Y, Matsunaga T, Uchida Y, Sato N, Kawafune S, Manabe R et al.

International journal of infectious diseases : IJID : official publication of the International Society for Infectious Diseases, 2026

Abstract

Objectives: To report presumed hypervirulent Klebsiella pneumoniae pyelonephritis causing renal vein-inferior vena cava septic thrombophlebitis, cavitary septic pulmonary emboli, and lung abscesses.

Case presentation: A 47-year-old woman with untreated diabetes presented with urinary symptoms, prolonged fever, abdominal pain, and hypoxemia. Blood and urine cultures yielded K. pneumoniae, with bacteremia persisting despite meropenem. An 11-mm positive string test supported a hypermucoviscous phenotype, although hypervirulence was not genetically confirmed. Computed tomography showed left pyelonephritis, renal abscesses, a near-occlusive renal vein-inferior vena cava thrombus, and bilateral peripheral cavitary pulmonary nodules with pulmonary arterial emboli. Transesophageal echocardiography showed no vegetation.

Management and outcome: Because nephrectomy, thrombectomy, and caval filter placement were considered hazardous, therapy was changed to ceftriaxone at meningitis dosing plus levofloxacin to optimize β-lactam exposure and fluoroquinolone penetration into deep abscesses, with anticoagulation and insulin therapy. Blood cultures cleared by day 7. Pulmonary lesions worsened on day 10, but the thrombus and cavitary lesions regressed by day 38 with continued medical treatment. No recurrent thrombosis was observed on day 207.

Conclusion: Persistent K. pneumoniae bacteremia with cavitary peripheral pulmonary nodules should prompt evaluation for an occult septic venous source,…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a case report, done in people. Its evidence level is 5 of 5 (Very low · case / narrative / animal / in vitro / in silico). Case reports, narrative reviews, and animal, cell or computer-model studies give the weakest evidence for human health.

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