Incidence of bloodstream infections: a nationwide surveillance of acute care hospitals in Switzerland 2008–2014

Buetti, Niccolò; Atkinson, Andrew; Marschall, Jonas; Kronenberg, Andreas

doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2016-013665

Cited by 115 publications

(53 citation statements)

References 12 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Escherichia coli is a major cause of bloodstream infection 1 and a critical antimicrobial resistance concern 2 since rates are increasing across Europe. [3][4][5] The number of E coli bloodstream infections that were voluntarily reported to Public Health England increased by 44% between 2003 and 2011, 6 and after introduction of mandatory reporting in July, 2011, a further 28% increase was seen by July-September, 2016, to 78·8 cases per 100 000 people. 7 As elsewhere in the world, over 70% of E coli bloodstream infections in England, UK, are identified within 2 days of admission to hospital.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Trends over time in Escherichia coli bloodstream infections, urinary tract infections, and antibiotic susceptibilities in Oxfordshire, UK, 1998–2016: a study of electronic health records

Vihta

Stoesser

Llewelyn

et al. 2018

The Lancet Infectious Diseases

141

113

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Trends over time in Escherichia coli bloodstream infections, urinary tract infections, and antibiotic susceptibilities in Oxfordshire, UK, 1998–2016: a study of electronic health records

Vihta

Stoesser

Llewelyn

et al. 2018

The Lancet Infectious Diseases

141

113

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The treatment of enterococcal bacteraemia is complicated by antimicrobial resistance as all Enterococcus species are inherently resistant to cephalosporins and acquired resistance to penicillins, aminoglycosides and glycopeptides is increasingly common [12]. Although the prevalence of vancomycin-resistant enterococci (VRE) is gradually increasing in North America and parts of Europe [5,12], the prevalence of vancomycin-susceptible isolates remains high in many European countries and Japan [13]. Indeed, survey reports suggest that VRE isolates are relatively less common in enterococcal bacteraemia [13][14][15][16][17][18], while the ampicillinsusceptible species, e.g.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Enterococcal bacteraemia: predictive and prognostic risk factors for ampicillin resistance

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

To identify the predictive and prognostic factors associated with ampicillin-resistant enterococcal bacteraemia, we retrospectively reviewed demographic, microbiological and clinical data of patients attending the Kyoto University Hospital, Japan, between 2009 and 2015. Logistic regression and Cox regression analyses were performed to determine the predictive and prognostic factors, respectively. In total, 235 episodes of enterococcal bacteraemia were identified. As ampicillin susceptibility was uniform for Enterococcus faecalis isolates and almost all ampicillin-resistant isolates were E. faecium, bacteraemia due to these species was investigated separately. E. faecalis and E. faecium accounted for 41.7% (98/235) and 48.1% (113/235) of the isolates, respectively and 91.2% of all E. faecium were ampicillin resistant. Nosocomial E. faecium bacteraemia acquisition (odds ratio (OR), 13.6; 95% confidence intervals, 3.16-58.3) was associated with ampicillin-resistant isolates. Bacteraemia from an unknown source (hazard ratio (HR), 2.91; 95% CI 1.36-6.21) and an increased Pitt bacteraemia score (PBS) (HR, 1.36; 95% CI 1.21-1.52) were associated with 30-day mortality in E. faecium infections. Likewise, bacteraemia from an unknown source (HR, 4.17; 95% CI 1.25-13.9) and increased PBS (HR, 1.27; 95% CI 1.09-1.48) were associated with 30-day mortality in patients with E. faecalis bacteraemia. The empirical therapeutic administration of glycopeptides is recommended for patients with bacteraemia from an unknown source in whom severe E. faecium bacteraemia is suspected.

show abstract

“…ml −1 ). E. coli was selected as a model organism to initially screen for the best recovery method -a predominant BSI pathogen accountable for up to 20-30 % of BSI cases [5,34]. Here, we focussed on methods that would offer a rapid, cost-effective and transferable solution for extracting bacteria from blood culture in a low-cost and high throughput setting.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Improving the recovery and detection of bloodstream pathogens from blood culture

Falconer

Hammond

Gillespie

2020

Journal of Medical Microbiology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Introduction. Bloodstream infections (BSI) are growing in incidence and present a serious health threat. Most patients wait up to 48 h before microbiological cultures can confirm a diagnosis. Low numbers of circulating bacteria in patients with BSI mean we need to develop new methods and optimize current methods to facilitate efficient recovery of bacteria from the bloodstream. This will allow detection of positive blood cultures in a more clinically useful timeframe. Many bacterial blood recovery methods are available and usually include a combination of techniques such as centrifugation, filtration, serum separation or lysis treatment. Here, we evaluate nine different bacteria recovery methods performed directly from blood culture. Aim. We sought to identify a bacterial recovery method that would allow for a cost-effective and efficient recovery of common BSI pathogens directly from blood culture. Methods. Simulated E. coli ATCC 25922 blood culture was used as a model system to evaluate nine different bacteria recovery methods. Each method was assessed on recovery yield, cost, hands-on time, risk of contamination and ease of use. The highest scoring recovery method was further evaluated using simulated blood cultures spiked with seven of the most frequently occurring bloodstream pathogens. The recovery yield was calculated based on c.f.u. count before and after each recovery method. Independent t-tests were performed to determine if the recovery methods evaluated were significantly different based on c.f.u. ml−1 log recovery. Results. All nine methods evaluated successfully recovered E. coli ATCC 25922 from simulated blood cultures although the bacterial yield differed significantly. The MALDI-TOF intact cell method offered the poorest recovery with a mean loss of 2.94±0.37 log c.f.u. ml−1. In contrast, a method developed by Bio-Rad achieved the greatest bacterial yield with a mean bacteria loss of 0.27±0.013 log c.f.u. ml−1. Overall, a low-speed serum-separation method was demonstrated to be the most efficient method in terms of time, cost and recovery efficiency and successfully recovered seven of the most frequent BSI pathogens with a mean bacteria loss of 0.717±0.18 log c.f.u. ml−1. Conclusion. The efficiency of bacterial recovery can vary significantly between different methods and thereby can have a critical impact on downstream analysis. The low-speed serum-separation method offered a simple and effective means of recovering common BSI pathogens from blood culture and will be further investigated for use in the rapid detection of bacteraemia and susceptibility testing in clinical practice.

show abstract

Incidence of bloodstream infections: a nationwide surveillance of acute care hospitals in Switzerland 2008–2014

Cited by 115 publications

References 12 publications

Trends over time in Escherichia coli bloodstream infections, urinary tract infections, and antibiotic susceptibilities in Oxfordshire, UK, 1998–2016: a study of electronic health records

Trends over time in Escherichia coli bloodstream infections, urinary tract infections, and antibiotic susceptibilities in Oxfordshire, UK, 1998–2016: a study of electronic health records

Enterococcal bacteraemia: predictive and prognostic risk factors for ampicillin resistance

Improving the recovery and detection of bloodstream pathogens from blood culture

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About