Evidence Hub

Antibiotic sensitivity/resistance pattern of hospital acquired blood stream infection in children cancer patients: A retrospective study

Elseady NSM, Khamis NAGA, AbdelGhani S, Rabea HM, Elanany MG, Nashat Alsheshtawi K, Abdelrahim MEA

International journal of clinical practice, 2021

607 participants

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The literature shows a growing emphasis on understanding the local patterns of antimicrobial resistance (AMR). We aimed to evaluate the spectrum of local microorganisms that cause bloodstream infections (BSI) and their AMR patterns in an Egyptian institution treating children with cancer.

METHODS: We conducted a single-centre, retrospective, study on children with confirmed primary, hospital-acquired, BSIs over one year. The microbiological examination of blood samples was done according to the Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute. The antibiotic sensitivity test was done using VITEK® 2 system.

RESULTS: We retrieved the data of 607 children with a median age of 5 (0.25-18) years old. The most encountered diagnosis was acute lymphoblastic leukaemia (40%). Most identified microorganisms were gram-negative bacilli, mainly Escherichia coli (27.8%), followed by Klebsiella pneumoniae (12.2%). Gram-negative bacilli showed high resistance to piperacillin/tazobactam, levofloxacin, and meropenem. The lowest resistance rates for Gram-negative bacilli isolates were noted for colistin and tigecycline. Similarly, the gram-positive cocci showed high resistance to ampicillin/sulbactam, cefoxitin, and clindamycin; and low resistance regarding vancomycin and linezolid.

CONCLUSION: Resistance proportions (pattern) were similar to those reported in other countries with a higher distribution of E coli and a growing resistance to levofloxacin. Further investigation of the…

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: 607 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