Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-b95js Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-08T11:44:48.331Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Risk Factors and Outcomes Associated With Non–Enterococcus faecalis, Non–Enterococcus faecium Enterococcal Bacteremia

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 June 2016

Marie A. de Perio ,
Paul R. Yarnold ,
John Warren  and
Gary A. Noskin
Marie A. de Perio
Affiliation:
Department of Medicine, Feinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern University, Chicago, Illinois
Paul R. Yarnold
Affiliation:
Department of Emergency Medicine, Feinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern University, Chicago, Illinois
John Warren
Affiliation:
Department of Pathology, Feinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern University, Chicago, Illinois
Gary A. Noskin*
Affiliation:
Department of Medicine, Division of Infectious Diseases, Feinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern University, Chicago, Illinois
*
Feinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern University, 251 East Huron Street, Gaiter 3-210, Chicago, IL 60611 ([email protected])
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Objectives.

To compare risk factors, clinical features, and outcomes in patients with Enterococcus avium, Enterococcus casseliflavus, Enterococcus durans, Enterococcus gallinarum, and Enterococcus mundtii bacteremia (cases) with those in patients with Enterococcus faecalis bacteremia (controls).

Design.

A retrospective case-control study.

Setting.

A 725-bed, university-affiliated, academic medical center.

Patients.

The clinical microbiology database at Northwestern Memorial Hospital from January 1994 to May 2003 was searched to identify cases; each case was matched to one control on the basis of date of admission.

Results.

Thirty-three cases were identified and matched with 33 controls. The mean duration of hospital stay was longer (29.7 vs 17.2 days; P = .03) and the mean time to acquisition of bacteremia was greater (16.5 vs 6.3 days; P = .003) for cases than controls. Cases were more likely to have underlying hematologic malignancies (P < .001), to have been treated with corticosteroids (P = .02), and to be neutropenic (P = .003). Controls were more likely to have an indwelling bladder catheter (P = .01), and cases were more likely to have the gastrointestinal tract as a source of infection (P = .007) and to have concurrent cholangitis (P = .002). There were no differences in severity of illness or in mortality rates.

Conclusions.

Compared with patients with E. faecalis bacteremia, patients with non-E. faecalis, non-Enterococcus faecium enterococcal bacteremia were more likely to have a hematologic malignancy, prior treatment with corticosteroids, neutropenia, and cholangitis; longer duration of hospital stay was also identified as a clinical feature. However, non-E. faecalis, non-E. faecium species are not associated with any differences in mortality.

Type
Original Articles
Information
Infection Control & Hospital Epidemiology , Volume 27 , Issue 1 , January 2006 , pp. 28 - 33
Copyright
Copyright © The Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America 2006

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1.Moellering, RC Jr. Vancomycin-resistant enterococci. Clin Infect Dis 1998; 26:1196–1199.Google Scholar
2.Johnson, AP. The pathogenicity of enterococci. J Antimicrob Chemother 1994; 33:1083–1089.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
3.Maki, DG, Agger, WA. Enterococcal bacteremia: clinical features, the risk of endocarditis, and management. Medicine (Baltimore) 1988; 67:248–269.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
4.Murray, BE. The life and times of the enterococcus. Clin Microbiol Rev 1990; 3:46–65.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
5.Weinstein, MP, Towns, ML, Quartey, SM, et al. The clinical significance of positive blood cultures in the 1990s: a prospective comprehensive evaluation of the microbiology, epidemiology, and outcome of bacteremia and fungemia in adults. Clin Infect Dis 1997; 24:584–602.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
6.National Nosocomial Infections Surveillance (NNIS) System report, data summary from January 1990 to May 1999, issued June 1999. Am J Infect Control 1999; 27:520–532.Google Scholar
7.Edmond, MB, Wallace, SE, McClish, DK, et al. Nosocomial bloodstream infections in United States hospitals: a three year analysis. Clin Infect Dis 1999; 29:239–244.Google Scholar
8.Noskin, GA, Till, M, Patterson, BK, Clarke, JT, Warren, JR. High-level gentamicin resistance in Enterococcus faecalis bacteremia. J Infect Dis 1991;164:1212–1215.Google Scholar
9.Gray, J, Marsh, PJ, Stewart, D, Pedler, SJ. Enterococcal bacteremia: a prospective study of 125 episodes. J Hosp Infect 1994; 27:179–186.Google Scholar
10.Patterson, JE, Sweeney, AH, Simms, M, et al. An analysis of 110 serious enterococcal infections. Epidemiology, antibiotic susceptibility, and outcome. Medicine (Baltimore) 1995; 74:191–200.Google Scholar
11.Noskin, GA, Peterson, LR, Warren, JR. Enterococcus faecium and Enterococcus faecalis bacteremia: acquisition and outcome. Clin Infect Dis 1995; 20:296–301.Google Scholar
12.Vergis, EN, Hayden, MK, Chow, JW, et al. Determinants of vancomycin resistance and mortality rates in enterococcal bacteremia: a prospective multicenter study. Ann Intern Med 2001; 135:484–492.Google Scholar
13.Bone, RC, Balk, RA, Cerra, FB, et al. Definitions for sepsis and organ failure and guidelines for the use of innovative therapies in sepsis. Chest 1992; 101:1644–1655.Google Scholar
14.Knaus, WA, Draper, EA, Wagner, DP, Zimmerman, JE. APACHE II: a severity of disease classification system. Crit Care Med 1985; 13:818–829.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
15.Facklam, RR, Collins, MD. Identification of enterococcus species isolated from human infections by a conventional test scheme. J Clin Microbiol 1989; 27:731–734.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
16.National Committee for Clinical Laboratory Standards. Methods for Dilution Antimocrobial Susceptibility Testing for Bacteria that Grow Aerobically, ed. 6. Villanova, Pa: National Committee for Clinical Laboratory Standards; 2004, NCCLS document M7-A6.Google Scholar
17.Reid, KC, Franklin, RC, Patel, R. Clinical and epidemiological features of Enterococcus casseliflavus/flavescens and Enterococcus gallinarum bacteremia: a report of 20 cases. Clin Infect Dis 2001; 32:1540–1546.Google Scholar
18.Choi, SH, Lee, SO, Kim, TH, et al. Clinical features and outcomes of bacteremia caused by Enterococcus casseliflavus, and Enterococcus gallinarum: analysis of 56 cases. Clin Infect Dis 2004; 38:53–61.Google Scholar
19.Toye, B, Shymanski, J, Bobrowska, M, et al. Clinical and epidemiologic significance of enterococci intrinsically resistant to vancomycin (possessing the vanC genotype). J Clin Microbiol 1997; 35:3166–3170.Google Scholar
20.Leclercq, R, Dutka-Malen, S, Duval, J, et al. Vancomycin resistance gene vanC is specific to Enterococcus gallinarum. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1992; 36:2005–2008.Google Scholar
21.Patel, R, Uhl, JR, Kohner, P, et al. Multiplex PCR detection of vanA, vanB, vanC-1, and van C-2/3 genes in enterococci. J Clin Microbiol 1997; 35: 703–707.Google Scholar
22.Garner, JS, Jarvis, WR, Emori, TG, Horan, TC, Hughes, JM. CDC definitions for nosocomial infections, 1988. Am J Infect Control 1988; 16:128–140.Google Scholar