Carbapenem-resistant Klebsiella pneumoniae in university-affiliated hospitals: risk factors for isolation among hospitalized patients and molecular subtyping

This article has been Reviewed by the following groups

Read the full article See related articles

Abstract

Background

Carbapenem-resistant Klebsiella pneumoniae (CRKP) is an important healthcare-associated pathogen. This study aimed to identify factors associated with CRKP isolation among hospitalized patients, describe molecular epidemiology, and mortality associated with CRKP isolation.

Methods

We performed a retrospective case-control study at the two university-affiliated teaching hospitals. 150 patients were included (30 cases and 120 controls) in this study.

Each patient with CRKP, a case-patient, was matched with four controls by admission facility, age, and sex. Controls, patients without CRKP were randomly selected from a computerized list of inpatients whose admission date was the same as that of the case, within 48 hours of the date of the initial positive culture. We calculated the risk of in-hospital death as the number of deaths divided by the number of cases and evaluated the risk of mortality associated with the site of positive culture. Molecular epidemiology investigation using comparison of restricted DNA patterns of CRKP by pulsed-field gel electrophoresis (PFGE) was conducted.

Results

A greater proportion of cases than controls had undergone an invasive procedure, including use of a central vein catheter (p=0.007, OR, 3.4, 95% CI, 1.4-8.7), and mechanical ventilation (p=0.002, OR, 3.6, 95% CI, 1.6-8.1), nutrition by tube feeding (p=0.001, OR, 4.2, 95% CI, 1.8 −10).

Pre-admission treatment within two months with the following antibiotic classes was associated with CRKP isolation: carbapenems (p=0.001, OR, 24.4, 95% CI, 2.73-217.96), fluoroquinolones (p<0.0001, OR, 6.17, 95% CI, 2.4 – 15.83), anti-pseudomonal penicillin (p = 0.02; OR, 6.03; 95% CI, 1.98 −18.32), and cephalosporins (p=0.001, OR, 5.36, 95% CI, 2.07 −13.87).

The molecular analysis detected that over 90% of isolates shared similar PFGE patterns.

CRKP isolation was associated with significantly higher In-hospital mortality (36.7% vs 3.3%) in comparison to controls (p<.0001).

Positive cultures from sites other than urine were associated with substantially higher mortality than was a positive urine culture (RR= 4.0).

Article activity feed

  1. Peer review report

    Reviewer: Wei Zhang Institution: The First Affiliated Hospital of Hebei North University, Hebei Province, China. email: 15369318318@163.com


    Section 1 – Serious concerns

    • Do you have any serious concerns about the manuscript such as fraud, plagiarism, unethical or unsafe practices? No
    • Have authors’ provided the necessary ethics approval (from authors’ institution or an ethics committee)? *Yes

    Section 2 – Language quality

    • How would you rate the English language quality? High quality

    Section 3 – validity and reproducibility

    • Does the work cite relevant and sufficient literature? Yes
    • Is the study design appropriate and are the methods used valid? Yes
    • Are the methods documented and analysis provided so that the study can be replicated? Yes
    • Is the source data that underlies the result available so that the study can be …
  2. SciScore rigor report

    Sciscore is an AI platform that assesses the rigor of the methods used in the manuscript. SciScore assists expert referees by finding and presenting information scattered throughout a manuscript in a simple format.


    Not required = Field is not applicable to this study

    Not detected = Field is applicable to this study, but not included.


    Ethics

    IRB: This study was approved by the Institutional Review Board of the Emory University School of Medicine.

    Consent: IRB of Emory University School of Medicine gave ethical approval for this work I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) …