Bloodstream infections in neutropenic patients with cancer: Differences between patients with haematological malignancies and solid tumours

Marín, Mar; Gudiol, Carlota; Ardanuy, Carmen; García-Vidal, Carolina; Calvo, Mariona; Arnán, Montserrat; Carratalà, Jordi

doi:10.1016/j.jinf.2014.05.018

Cited by 98 publications

(99 citation statements)

References 25 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…In the study with only neutropenic patients, GNB were the leading cause of BSI in both groups, but they were significantly more frequent in patients with solid tumors, mainly due to P. aeruginosa. 19 Gram-positive BSI tended to be more frequent in patients with hematologic malignancies than in those with solid tumors, with coagulase-negative staphylococci and Enterococcus spp being significantly more frequent in this group. MDR GNB were more frequently isolated in the hematological group, mainly due to ESBL-producing Enterobacteriaceae and Stenotrophomonas maltophilia.…”

Section: Etiology Of Bloodstream Infection In Patients With Solid Tumorsmentioning

confidence: 81%

“…In neutropenic patients with solid tumors, the combinations b-lactam C b-lactamase inhibitor and amoxicillin-clavulanate C ciprofloxacin were used significantly more often than in neutropenic patients with hematological malignancies, in whom, on the other hand, the use of a glycopeptide was significantly more common. 19,26 The Spanish and Greek studies found a similar percentage of patients with solid tumors and BSI receiving inadequate initial empirical antibiotic therapy (23% and 29.2% respectively). 26,27 In contrast, neutropenic hematological patients were more likely to receive inadequate initial empirical antibiotic therapy than neutropenic solid tumor patients.…”

Section: Etiology Of Bloodstream Infection In Patients With Solid Tumorsmentioning

confidence: 92%

“…26,27 In contrast, neutropenic hematological patients were more likely to receive inadequate initial empirical antibiotic therapy than neutropenic solid tumor patients. 19 This finding is probably due to the higher rates of BSI due to MDR microorganisms and coagulase-negative staphylococci in the hematological patients.…”

Section: Etiology Of Bloodstream Infection In Patients With Solid Tumorsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…19 This finding was probably due to that fact that hematologic patients have higher levels of immunosuppression, with more profound and prolonged neutropenia, and also more frequent chemotherapy-induced mucositis, which favors invasive bacterial infections such as BSI.…”

Section: Incidence Of Bloodstream Infection In Patients With Solid Tumentioning

confidence: 99%

“…19 (Table 1). Regarding the clinical characteristics, patients with hematological malignances were significantly younger, were more likely to have a vascular catheter in place, and had received previous antibiotic therapy more frequently.…”

Section: The Changing Epidemiology Of Bloodstream Infection In Patienmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Bloodstream infections in patients with solid tumors

2016

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Little information is currently available regarding bloodstream infection (BSI) in patients with solid tumors who, for a variety of reasons, are particularly predisposed to develop this condition. In this review we focus on the incidence, epidemiology, clinical features, etiology, antimicrobial resistance, and outcomes of BSI of adult cancer patients with solid tumors. Most episodes of BSI occur in nonneutropenic patients, in whom the site of primary or metastatic tumor often serves as the portal of entry. The urinary tract and the abdomen are the most frequent sources of infection, and cholangitis is the most common recurrent source of BSI. Gram-negative bacilli are becoming the leading cause of BSI in patients with solid tumors, and the rate of multidrug resistance is increasingly being recognized. The case-fatality rate in patients with solid tumors and BSI is high, especially among those with comorbidities, advanced neoplasms, corticosteroid therapy, and shock at presentation.

show abstract

Section: Etiology Of Bloodstream Infection In Patients With Solid Tumorsmentioning

confidence: 81%

Section: Etiology Of Bloodstream Infection In Patients With Solid Tumorsmentioning

confidence: 92%

Section: Etiology Of Bloodstream Infection In Patients With Solid Tumorsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Incidence Of Bloodstream Infection In Patients With Solid Tumentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: The Changing Epidemiology Of Bloodstream Infection In Patienmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Bloodstream infections in patients with solid tumors

2016

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Vaccines for the prevention of infections in adults with solid tumors

Bora

Hirsch

Kreuzberger

et al. 2023

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A retrospective study on Escherichia coli bacteremia in immunocompromised patients: Microbiological features, clinical characteristics, and risk factors for shock and death

Tao

Wang

Min

et al. 2020

Clinical Laboratory Analysis

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background To evaluate clinical features, bacterial characteristics, and risk factors for shock and mortality of immunocompromised patients with Escherichia coli bacteremia. Methods A nearly 6‐year retrospective study of E coli bacteremia in 188 immunocompromised patients at Xiangya Hospital was conducted. Demographic, clinical, and laboratory data were documented. Phylogenetic background and virulence factors of E coli isolates were detected by polymerase chain reaction. Risk factors for shock and mortality were also investigated. Results Of all 188 E coli isolates, most prevalent virulence factors were fimH (91.0%), followed by traT (68.6%) and iutA (67.0%), while papG allele I , gafD, and cdtB were not detected. Phylogenetic group D was dominant (42.0%) among all isolates, and group B2 accounted for 17.6%, while group A and B1 accounted for 28.2% and 12.2%, respectively. In univariate analysis, ibeA and cnf1 were associated with mortality, which were not found in multivariate regression analysis. 22.3% of patients suffered shock, and 30‐day mortality rate was 21.3%. MDR (HR 2.956; 95% CI, 1.091‐8.012) was the only risk factor for shock, while adult (HR 0.239; 95% CI, 0.108‐0.527) was a protective factor. Multivariate analysis revealed that shock (HR 4.268; 95% CI, 2.208‐8.248; P < .001) and Charlson index > 2 (HR 2.073; 95% CI, 1.087‐3.952; P = .027) were associated with fatal outcome. Conclusions Escherichia coli bacteremia was highly lethal in immunocompromised patients, and host‐related factors played major roles in poor prognosis, while bacterial determinants had little effect on outcome. This study also provided additional information about the virulence and phylogenetic group characteristics of E coli bacteremia.

show abstract

Bloodstream infections in neutropenic patients with cancer: Differences between patients with haematological malignancies and solid tumours

Cited by 98 publications

References 25 publications

Bloodstream infections in patients with solid tumors

Bloodstream infections in patients with solid tumors

Vaccines for the prevention of infections in adults with solid tumors

A retrospective study on Escherichia coli bacteremia in immunocompromised patients: Microbiological features, clinical characteristics, and risk factors for shock and death

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About