Clinical and Molecular Analyses of Recurrent Gram-Negative Bloodstream Infections
Clinical Infectious Diseases, ISSN: 1537-6591, Vol: 76, Issue: 3, Page: E1285-E1293
2023
- 6Citations
- 12Captures
- 1Mentions
Metric Options: CountsSelecting the 1-year or 3-year option will change the metrics count to percentiles, illustrating how an article or review compares to other articles or reviews within the selected time period in the same journal. Selecting the 1-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year. Selecting the 3-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year plus the two years prior.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Metrics Details
- Citations6
- Citation Indexes6
- Captures12
- Readers12
- 12
- Mentions1
- News Mentions1
- 1
Most Recent News
Recurrence of Gram-negative Bacterial Blood Stream Infections due to relapse not reinfection
A recent investigation has revealed that relapse was the most common cause of recurrent Gram-negative bacteria bloodstream infections (GNB-BSI). The study was published in the
Article Description
Background: The causes and clinical characteristics of recurrent gram-negative bacterial bloodstream infections (GNB-BSI) are poorly understood. Methods: We used a cohort of patients with GNB-BSI to identify clinical characteristics, microbiology, and risk factors associated with recurrent GNB-BSI. Bacterial genotyping (pulsed-field gel electrophoresis [PFGE] and whole-genome sequencing [WGS]) was used to determine whether episodes were due to relapse or reinfection. Multivariable logistic regression was used to identify risk factors for recurrence. Results: Of the 1423 patients with GNB-BSI in this study, 60 (4%) had recurrent GNB-BSI. Non-White race (odds ratio [OR], 2.35; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.38-4.01; P =. 002), admission to a surgical service (OR, 2.18; 95% CI, 1.26-3.75; P =. 005), and indwelling cardiac device (OR, 2.73; 95% CI, 1.21-5.58; P =. 009) were associated with increased risk for recurrent GNB-BSI. Among the 48 patients with recurrent GNB-BSI whose paired bloodstream isolates underwent genotyping, 63% were due to relapse (30 of 48) and 38% were due to reinfection (18 of 48) based on WGS. Compared with WGS, PFGE correctly differentiated relapse and reinfection in 98% (47 of 48) of cases. Median time to relapse and reinfection was similar (113 days; interquartile range [IQR], 35-222 vs 174 days; IQR, 69-599; P =. 13). Presence of a cardiac device was associated with relapse (relapse: 7 of 27, 26%; nonrelapse: 65 of 988, 7%; P =. 002). Conclusions: In this study, recurrent GNB-BSI was most commonly due to relapse. PFGE accurately differentiated relapse from reinfection when compared with WGS. Cardiac device was a risk factor for relapse.
Bibliographic Details
Oxford University Press (OUP)
Provide Feedback
Have ideas for a new metric? Would you like to see something else here?Let us know