Evidence Hub

Risk factors and outcome of levofloxacin-resistant Elizabethkingia meningoseptica bacteraemia in adult patients in Taiwan

Huang YC, Huang YW, Lin YT, Wang FD, Chan YJ, Yang TC

European journal of clinical microbiology & infectious diseases : official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology, 2017

93 participants · 32 citations

Abstract

Elizabethkingia meningoseptica is an emerging nosocomial pathogen associated with high mortality and inherently resistant to many antimicrobial agents. Levofloxacin has been considered as a therapeutic agent based on in vitro susceptibility. We aim to investigate the risk factors and outcomes for levofloxacin-resistant E. meningoseptica bacteraemia. Adult patients with E. meningoseptica bacteraemia were identified retrospectively in a medical centre in Taiwan from January 2011 to July 2015. These strains were identified by the Vitek2 automated system or matrix-assisted laser desorption-ionization time-of-flight mass spectrometry. We compared clinical features and outcomes of patients with levofloxacin-resistant (MIC >2 μg/mL) and levofloxacin-susceptible (MIC ≤2 μg/mL) E. meningoseptica bacteraemia. A total of 93 patients were identified, including 51 (54.8%) with levofloxacin-resistant E. meningoseptica bacteraemia. The APACHE II score (OR, 1.08; 95% CI, 1.02-1.14; p = 0.008) was the only independent risk factor for levofloxacin-resistant E. meningoseptica bacteraemia. The 14-day mortality for patients with levofloxacin-resistant E. meningoseptica bacteraemia (attributable mortality: 30.7%) was significantly higher than that for patients with the levofloxacin-susceptible strain (56.9% versus 26.2%, p = 0.003). In the multivariate analysis of risk factors for mortality, appropriate definite antibiotic use was the only factor associated with 14-day survival (OR, 0.11; 95% CI,…

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. Reported size: 93 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