1
|
Incidence, Clinicomicrobiological Characteristics, Risk Factors, and Treatment Outcomes of Bacterial Infections Following Liver Transplantation in Pediatrics: A Retrospective Cohort Study. ARCHIVES OF PEDIATRIC INFECTIOUS DISEASES 2022. [DOI: 10.5812/pedinfect-118809] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/12/2022]
Abstract
Background: Liver transplantation (LT) is the definitive treatment for patients with advanced liver failure. Bacterial infections are common consequences of organ transplantation resulting from immune suppression and prolonged hospitalization. Methods: This retrospective cohort study examined the records of all liver transplant pediatrics under 18 years of age in Abu-Ali Sina hospital, Shiraz, Fars province, Iran, from April 2019 to February 2020. Demographic, laboratory, and clinical data were extracted along with the administered therapeutic approach for the patient. Results: Of 80 enrolled patients, 52 were male, and 28 were female, with a median age of 60 months. An incidence of 67.9% of bacterial infections was recorded. Gram-negative and Gram-positive pathogens accounted for 64.06% and 35.93% of infections, respectively. Surgical site infections were the most common ones. The length of ICU stay, hospitalization, mechanical ventilation duration, and re-hospitalization were significantly higher in the infected group than in non-infected pediatrics (P-value < 0.05). Multivariate regression analysis showed that the only risk factor for bacterial infections after LT was the length of ICU stay. The mortality rate was 22%, which was significantly higher among the infection group (P = 0.008). Conclusions: A high rate of bacterial infections and an increasing prevalence of nosocomial and antibiotic-resistant pathogens were detected in the early period after LT.
Collapse
|
2
|
Zhang Y, Fan B, Luo Y, Tao Z, Nie Y, Wang Y, Ding F, Li Y, Gu D. Comparative analysis of carbapenemases, RND family efflux pumps and biofilm formation potential among Acinetobacter baumannii strains with different carbapenem susceptibility. BMC Infect Dis 2021; 21:841. [PMID: 34416851 PMCID: PMC8377947 DOI: 10.1186/s12879-021-06529-2] [Citation(s) in RCA: 14] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/08/2021] [Accepted: 08/02/2021] [Indexed: 01/01/2023] Open
Abstract
Aim This study has conducted a comparative analysis of common carbapenemases harboring, the expression of resistance-nodulation-cell division (RND) family efflux pumps, and biofilm formation potential associated with carbapenem resistance among Acinetobacter baumannii (A. baumannii) strains with different carbapenem susceptibility. Methods: A total of 90 isolates of A. baumannii from two tertiary hospitals of China were identified and grouped as carbapenem susceptible A. baumannii (CSAB) strains and carbapenem non-susceptible A. baumannii (CnSAB) strains based on the susceptibility to imipenem. Harboring of carbapenemase genes, relative expression of RND family efflux pumps and biofilm formation potential were compared between the two groups. Result: Among these strains, 12 (13.3 %) strains were divided into the CSAB group, and 78 (86.7 %) strains into the CnSAB group. Compared with CSAB strains, CnSAB strains increased distribution of blaOXA−23 (p < 0.001) and ISAba1/blaOXA−51−like (p = 0.034) carbapenemase genes, and a 6.1-fold relative expression of adeB (p = 0.002), while CSAB strains led to biofilm formation by 1.3-fold than CnSAB strains (p = 0.021). Conclusions Clinically, harboring more blaOXA−23−like and ISAba1/blaOXA−51−like complex genes and overproduction of adeABC are relevant with carbapenem resistance, while carbapenem susceptible strains might survive the stress of antibiotic through their ability of higher biofilm formation.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Yanpeng Zhang
- Department of Clinical Laboratory, Shenzhen Institute of Translational Medicine, The First Affiliated Hospital of Shenzhen University, Shenzhen Second People's Hospital, No. 3002, Sungang Xi Road, Shenzhen, 518035, China.
| | - Bing Fan
- Department of Clinical Laboratory, Shenzhen Institute of Translational Medicine, The First Affiliated Hospital of Shenzhen University, Shenzhen Second People's Hospital, No. 3002, Sungang Xi Road, Shenzhen, 518035, China
| | - Yong Luo
- Department of Clinical Laboratory, Shenzhen Institute of Translational Medicine, The First Affiliated Hospital of Shenzhen University, Shenzhen Second People's Hospital, No. 3002, Sungang Xi Road, Shenzhen, 518035, China
| | - Zhiyuan Tao
- Department of Clinical Laboratory, Shenzhen Institute of Translational Medicine, The First Affiliated Hospital of Shenzhen University, Shenzhen Second People's Hospital, No. 3002, Sungang Xi Road, Shenzhen, 518035, China
| | - Yongbo Nie
- Department of Clinical Laboratory, Shenzhen Institute of Translational Medicine, The First Affiliated Hospital of Shenzhen University, Shenzhen Second People's Hospital, No. 3002, Sungang Xi Road, Shenzhen, 518035, China
| | - Yongtao Wang
- Department of Clinical Laboratory, Wuhan No.1 Hospital, Zhongshan Road, Wuhan, China
| | - Fanglin Ding
- Department of Clinical Laboratory, Shenzhen Institute of Translational Medicine, The First Affiliated Hospital of Shenzhen University, Shenzhen Second People's Hospital, No. 3002, Sungang Xi Road, Shenzhen, 518035, China
| | - Yanwu Li
- Department of Clinical Laboratory, Shenzhen Institute of Translational Medicine, The First Affiliated Hospital of Shenzhen University, Shenzhen Second People's Hospital, No. 3002, Sungang Xi Road, Shenzhen, 518035, China.
| | - Dayong Gu
- Department of Clinical Laboratory, Shenzhen Institute of Translational Medicine, The First Affiliated Hospital of Shenzhen University, Shenzhen Second People's Hospital, No. 3002, Sungang Xi Road, Shenzhen, 518035, China.
| |
Collapse
|