ArticleCureus2024
Carbapenem Versus Non-carbapenem Therapy in Hematology Patients: Extended-Spectrum Beta-Lactamase Positive Enterobacteriaceae Colonization Impact.
Article in Cureus, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundExtended-spectrum beta-lactamase-producing
objectivesWe aimed to determine the outcome of empirical carbapenem (de-escalation) versus non-carbapenem (escalation) therapy in adult hematology patients who have rectal extended-spectrum beta-lactamase positive ESBL-E colonization.
methodsTwo hundred three rectal swab cultures were collected from 130 patients, admission or during hospitalization between June 2014 and May 2015. Patients were followed till January 2016 for future infections due to ESBL-E. Empirical antibiotic treatment was started according to the patient's medical condition without consideration of previous colonization status. Stable patients received empirical escalation therapy. All-cause and early mortality of infections are analyzed.
resultsSeventy-three (36%) swabs were positive for ESBL-E. Patients with rectal ESBL-E colonization were defined as cases; patients without colonization were defined as controls. Prospective infection due to ESBL-E in the case and control group was 6.8% and 2.3%, respectively. No statistically significant relation was found between colonization and prospective infection due to ESBL-E (p=0.110). There was no all-cause or early mortality in prospective infections with ESBL-E. Among case patients, one patient each died from all-cause mortality in the escalation (n=55) and de-escalation (n=3) group. The all-cause mortality in the antibiotic switch group (n=30) was eight, including five patients in the early mortality group although the bacteriologic agents were susceptible to the given antibiotics.
conclusionIn our institution, rectal colonization with ESBL-E was high, but contracting an infection due to ESBL-E was surprisingly low. Colonization with ESBL-E may not necessarily end with an infection in some situations. In stable patients, disregarding colonization features before empirical therapy did not seem to be inappropriate.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.