Nicholas S Britt1, David J Ritchie2, Marin H Kollef3, Carey-Ann D Burnham4, Michael J Durkin5, Nicholas B Hampton6, Scott T Micek2. 1. Department of Pharmacy, Barnes-Jewish Hospital, St. Louis, MO. Electronic address: nbritt@ku.edu. 2. Department of Pharmacy, Barnes-Jewish Hospital, St. Louis, MO; Department of Pharmacy Practice, St. Louis College of Pharmacy, St. Louis, MO. 3. Department of Medicine, Division of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, MO. 4. Department of Pathology and Immunology, Pediatrics, and Molecular Microbiology, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, MO. 5. Department of Medicine, Division of Infectious Diseases, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, MO. 6. Center for Clinical Excellence, BJC HealthCare, St. Louis, MO.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Infections caused by carbapenem-resistant gram-negative bacilli are an emerging public health threat. However, there is a paucity of data examining comparative incidence rates, risk factors, and outcomes in this population. METHODS: This single-center retrospective cohort study was conducted at an urban tertiary-care academic medical center. We included patients admitted from 2012 to 2015 who met the following criteria: i) age ≥ 18 years; and ii) culture positive for carbapenem-resistant Enterobacteriaceae (CRE) or carbapenem-resistant non-Enterobacteriaceae (CRNE) from any site. Exclusion criteria were: i) < 2 systemic inflammatory response criteria; ii) cystic fibrosis; and iii) no targeted treatment. We evaluated hospital survival by Cox regression and year-by-year differences in the distribution of cases by the Cochran-Armitage test. RESULTS: 448 patients were analyzed (CRE, n = 111 [24.8%]; CRNE, n = 337 [75.2%]). CRE sepsis cases increased significantly over the study period (P <.001), driven primarily by increasing incidence of Enterobacter spp. infection (P = .004). No difference was observed in hospital survival between patients with CRE versus CRNE sepsis (hazard ratio [HR], 1.29; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.83-2.02; P = .285), even after adjusting for confounding factors (adjusted HR, 1.08; 95% CI, 0.62-1.87; P = .799). CONCLUSIONS: Clinical outcomes did not differ between patients with CRE versus CRNE sepsis. Dramatic increases in CRE, particularly Enterobacter spp., appear to be causing a shift in the burden of clinically significant carbapenem-resistant gram-negative infection.
BACKGROUND: Infections caused by carbapenem-resistant gram-negative bacilli are an emerging public health threat. However, there is a paucity of data examining comparative incidence rates, risk factors, and outcomes in this population. METHODS: This single-center retrospective cohort study was conducted at an urban tertiary-care academic medical center. We included patients admitted from 2012 to 2015 who met the following criteria: i) age ≥ 18 years; and ii) culture positive for carbapenem-resistant Enterobacteriaceae (CRE) or carbapenem-resistant non-Enterobacteriaceae (CRNE) from any site. Exclusion criteria were: i) < 2 systemic inflammatory response criteria; ii) cystic fibrosis; and iii) no targeted treatment. We evaluated hospital survival by Cox regression and year-by-year differences in the distribution of cases by the Cochran-Armitage test. RESULTS: 448 patients were analyzed (CRE, n = 111 [24.8%]; CRNE, n = 337 [75.2%]). CRE sepsis cases increased significantly over the study period (P <.001), driven primarily by increasing incidence of Enterobacter spp. infection (P = .004). No difference was observed in hospital survival between patients with CRE versus CRNE sepsis (hazard ratio [HR], 1.29; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.83-2.02; P = .285), even after adjusting for confounding factors (adjusted HR, 1.08; 95% CI, 0.62-1.87; P = .799). CONCLUSIONS: Clinical outcomes did not differ between patients with CRE versus CRNE sepsis. Dramatic increases in CRE, particularly Enterobacter spp., appear to be causing a shift in the burden of clinically significant carbapenem-resistant gram-negative infection.
Authors: Melissa L Hargreaves; Kristin M Shaw; Ginette Dobbins; Paula M Snippes Vagnone; Jane E Harper; Dave Boxrud; Ruth Lynfield; Maliha Aziz; Lance B Price; Kevin A T Silverstein; Jessica L Danzeisen; Bonnie Youmans; Kyle Case; Srinand Sreevatsan; Timothy J Johnson Journal: Antimicrob Agents Chemother Date: 2015-10-05 Impact factor: 5.191
Authors: N Mesaros; P Nordmann; P Plésiat; M Roussel-Delvallez; J Van Eldere; Y Glupczynski; Y Van Laethem; F Jacobs; P Lebecque; A Malfroot; P M Tulkens; F Van Bambeke Journal: Clin Microbiol Infect Date: 2007-01-31 Impact factor: 8.067
Authors: Joshua T Thaden; Vance G Fowler; Daniel J Sexton; Deverick J Anderson Journal: Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol Date: 2015-10-13 Impact factor: 3.254
Authors: Patricia A Bradford; Krystyna M Kazmierczak; Douglas J Biedenbach; Mark G Wise; Meredith Hackel; Daniel F Sahm Journal: Antimicrob Agents Chemother Date: 2015-12-14 Impact factor: 5.191
Authors: Matthew E Falagas; Giannoula S Tansarli; Drosos E Karageorgopoulos; Konstantinos Z Vardakas Journal: Emerg Infect Dis Date: 2014-07 Impact factor: 6.883
Authors: Ahmed Babiker; Lloyd G Clarke; Melissa Saul; Julie A Gealey; Cornelius J Clancy; M Hong Nguyen; Ryan K Shields Journal: Clin Infect Dis Date: 2021-12-06 Impact factor: 9.079