Evidence Hub

Bloodstream infections in adult patients with malignancy, epidemiology, microbiology, and risk factors associated with mortality and multi-drug resistance

Amanati A, Sajedianfard S, Khajeh S, Ghasempour S, Mehrangiz S, Nematolahi S, Shahhosein Z

BMC infectious diseases, 2021

126 citations

Abstract

Background: This study aimed to investigate the epidemiology, microbiology, and risk factors associated with mortality and multi-drug resistance bacterial bloodstream infections (BSIs) among adult cancer patients in Shiraz, Iran. We also report a four-year trend of antimicrobial resistance patterns of BSIs.

Methods: We conducted a retrospective study at a referral oncology hospital from July 2015 to August 2019, which included all adults with confirmed BSI.

Results: 2393 blood cultures tested during the four-year study period; 414 positive cultures were included. The mean age of our patients was 47.57 ± 17.46 years old. Central Line-Associated BSI (CLABSI) was more common in solid tumors than patients with hematological malignancies. Gram-negative (GN) bacteria were more detected (63.3%, 262) than gram-positive bacteria (36.7%, 152). Escherichia coli was the most common gram-negative organism (123/262, 47%), followed by Pseudomonas spp. (82/262, 31%) and Klebsiella pneumoniae (38/262, 14.5%). Coagulase-negative staphylococci (CoNS) was the most frequently isolated pathogen among gram-positive bacteria (83/152, 54.6%). Acinetobacter spp., Pseudomonas spp., E. coli, and K. pneumoniae were the most common Extended-Spectrum Beta-Lactamase (ESBL) producers (100, 96.2, 66.7%, and 60.7, respectively). Acinetobacter spp., Pseudomonas spp., Enterobacter spp., E. coli, and K. pneumoniae were the most common carbapenem-resistant (CR) isolates (77.8, 70.7, 33.3, 24.4, and 13.2%,…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a clinical trial, 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