| Literature DB >> 34087858 |
Kunio Yoshizawa1, Akinori Moroi1, Ran Iguchi1, Hiroshi Yokomichi2, Shinji Ogihara3, Kazuaki Watanabe3, Kei Nakajima4, Keita Kirito4, Koichiro Ueki1.
Abstract
ABSTRACT: Gram-negative bacteremia is a major cause of death among hematology inpatients who require heavy-dose chemotherapy and hematopoietic stem cell transplantation. Gram-negative bacillus (GNB) is more likely to be detected when the oral health is poor. However, there is a dearth of studies on the relationship between oral assessment and prevalence of GNB in hematology inpatients.This retrospective study aimed to evaluate the relationship between the original point-rating system for oral health examinations (point-oral exam) and the prevalence of GNB in hematology inpatients at the hematology ward of the Yamanashi University Hospital. GNB was detected by cultivating samples from the sputum and blood of each patient.A total of 129 subjects underwent a medical checkup and point-oral exam. The sputum and blood culture results of 55 patients were included in this study. The total points of patients positive for GNB (n = 25, 45.5%) were significantly higher than those who were negative for GNB (total score: median, 25th, 75th, percentile; 6 [4, 7] vs 2 [1, 4]; P = .00016). Based on the receiver operating characteristic analysis, a cutoff score of 5 proved to be most useful to detect GNB.An oral evaluation with a cutoff value of 5 or higher in the point-oral exam might indicate the need for a more thorough oral management to prevent the development of systemic infections from GNB.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2021 PMID: 34087858 PMCID: PMC8183721 DOI: 10.1097/MD.0000000000026111
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Medicine (Baltimore) ISSN: 0025-7974 Impact factor: 1.889
Figure 1Each of the 4 evaluated items (“hygiene,” “xerostomia,” “mucositis,” and “occlusion”) received a score ranging from 0 (excellent assessment) to 3 (extremely poor assessment). The total score ranged from 0 (excellent oral health) to 12 (worst oral health). Figure 1 is reprinted with permission from the International Journal of Functional Nutrition (https://doi.org/10.3892/ijfn.2020.8).
Figure 2Flowchart of the study design.
Demographic and clinical date of participants.
| Variable | Detection group (n = 25)(mean ± SD) | Nondetection group (n = 30)(mean ± SD) | |
| Sex (Men, n [%]) | 20 (80%) | 16 (53%) | .088∗ |
| Age (yrs) | 65.9 ± 13.2 | 63.3 ± 13.3 | .47† |
| Body mass index (kg/m2) | 22.95 ± 4.18 | 22.11 ± 3.18 | .48† |
| WBC (/μL) | 10.61 ± 19.00 | 10.71 ± 21.9 | .99† |
| Hb (g/dL) | 8.94 ± 2.14 | 9.45 ± 2.5 | .33† |
| CRP (mg/dL) | 5.24 ± 10.14 | 3.16 ± 4.7 | .43† |
| ALT (IU) | 29.36 ± 24.0 | 33.04 ± 62.2 | .78† |
| Creatinine (mg/dL) | 1.04 ± 0.93 | 0.95 ± 0.83 | .56† |
| Albumin (g/dL) | 3.45 ± 0.73 | 3.53 ± 0.83 | .38† |
Categorical variables are expressed as numbers and %: sex Continuous variables are expressed as mean ± standard deviation. Detection Group: detection of Gram-negative bacilli. Nondetection Group: nondetection of Gram-negative bacilli. ALT, alanine aminotransferase; CRP, C-reactive protein.
P value by chi-squared test.
P value by Mann–Whitney U test.
Score of category between detection group and nondetection group.
| Score of category (range) | Detection Group (n = 25)Median (25th, 75th percentile) | Nondetection Group (n = 30)Median (25th, 75th percentile)Median (25th, 75th percentile) | |
| Total point (0–12) | 6 (4, 7) | 2 (1, 4) | .0002∗ |
| Hygiene (0–3) | 2 (1, 2) | 1 (0, 1) | .014∗ |
| Xerostomia (0–3) | 1 (1, 2) | 0 (0, 1) | .001∗ |
| Mucositis (0–3) | 1 (1, 1) | 0 (0, 1) | .004∗ |
| Occlusion (0–3) | 1 (1, 2) | 0 (0, 1) | .051 |
Detection Group, detection of Gram-negative bacilli; nondetection group, nondetection of Gram-negative bacilli. P value by Fisher's exact test.
Statistically significant (P < .05).
Figure 3In the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis, the score for the point-oral exam that classified a patient as being at risk for the prevalence of GNB was 5, with a sensitivity and specificity of 72.0% and 86.7%, respectively. The area under the ROC curve was 0.854, indicating moderate accuracy.
Figure 4In the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis, the score for the point-oral exam that classified the patient as being at risk for mortality was 5, with a sensitivity and specificity of 58.3% and 74.2%, indicating moderate accuracy.
Risk for detection of gram negative bacillus by status of oral assessment in multivariate analysis.
| Parameter | Odds ratio | 95% CI | |
| Hygiene | |||
| Poor (category 2 or 3) | 1.94 | 0.40–9.28 | .41 |
| Good (category 0 or 1) | 1.0 (reference) | ||
| Xerostomia | |||
| Poor (category 2 or 3) | 1.09 | 0.18–6.47 | .92 |
| Good (category 0 or 1) | 1.0 (reference) | ||
| Total Points | |||
| Poor (points ≥ 5) | 10.95 | 2.02–59.34 | .006∗ |
| Good (points < 4) | 1.0 (reference) | ||
CI = confidence interval, SE = standard error.
Statistically significant (P < .05).