Blog
About

0
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
1 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found

      Hospitalizations for Bacterial Septicemia after Renal Transplantation in the United States

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPubMed
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background: It is common belief in the transplant community that rates of septicemia in transplant recipients have declined, but this has not been studied in a national population. Methods: Therefore, 33,479 renal transplant recipients in the United States Renal Data System from July 1, 1994 to June 30, 1997 were analyzed in a retrospective registry study of the incidence, associated factors, and mortality of hospitalizations with a primary discharge diagnosis of septicemia (ICD9 Code 038.x). Results: Renal transplant recipients had an adjusted incidence ratio of hospitalizations for septicemia of 41.52 (95% CI 35.45–48.96) compared to the general population. Hospitalizations for septicemia were most commonly associated with urinary tract infection as a secondary diagnosis (30.6%). In multivariate analysis, diabetes and urologic disease, female gender, delayed graft function, rejection, and pre-transplant dialysis, but not induction antibody therapy, were associated with hospitalizations for septicemia. Recipients hospitalized for septicemia had a mean patient survival of 9.03 years (95% CI 7.42–10.63) compared to 15.73 years (95% CI 14.77–16.69) for all other recipients. Conclusions: Even in the modern era, renal transplant recipients remain at high risk for hospitalizations for septicemia, which are associated with substantially decreased patient survival. Newly identified risks in this population were female recipients and pre-transplant dialysis.

          Related collections

          Most cited references 14

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: not found
          • Article: not found

          Infections in patients with diabetes mellitus.

            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Poor long-term survival after acute myocardial infarction among patients on long-term dialysis.

            Cardiovascular disease is common in patients on long-term dialysis, and it accounts for 44 percent of overall mortality in this group. We undertook a study to assess long-term survival after acute myocardial infarction among patients in the United States who were receiving long-term dialysis. Patients on dialysis who were hospitalized during the period from 1977 to 1995 for a first myocardial infarction after the initiation of renal-replacement therapy were retrospectively identified from the U.S. Renal Data System data base. Overall mortality and mortality from cardiac causes (including all in-hospital deaths) were estimated by the life-table method. The effect of independent predictors on survival was examined in a Cox regression model with adjustment for existing illnesses. The overall mortality (+/-SE) after acute myocardial infarction among 34,189 patients on long-term dialysis was 59.3+/-0.3 percent at one year, 73.0+/-0.3 percent at two years, and 89.9+/-0.2 percent at five years. The mortality from cardiac causes was 40.8+/-0.3 percent at one year, 51.8+/-0.3 percent at two years, and 70.2+/-0.4 percent at five years. Patients who were older or had diabetes had higher mortality than patients without these characteristics. Adverse outcomes occurred even in patients who had acute myocardial infarction in 1990 through 1995. Also, the mortality rate after myocardial infarction was considerably higher for patients on long-term dialysis than for renal-transplant recipients. Patients on dialysis who have acute myocardial infarction have high mortality from cardiac causes and poor long-term survival.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Has the mortality of septic shock changed with time.

              To determine whether a systematic review of the literature could identify changes in the mortality of septic shock over time. A review of all relevant papers from 1958 to August 1997, identified through a MEDLINE search and from the bibliographies of articles identified. The search identified 131 studies (99 prospective and 32 retrospective) involving a total of 10,694 patients. The patients' mean age was 57 yrs with no change over time. The overall mortality rate in the 131 studies was 49.7%. There was an overall significant trend of decreased mortality over the period studied (r=.49, p < .05). The mortality rate in those patients with bacteremia as an entry criterion was greater than that rate in patients whose entry criterion was sepsis without definite bacteremia (52.1% vs. 49.1%; chi2=6.1 and p< .05). The site of infection altered noticeably over the years. Chest-related infections increased over time, with Gram-negative infections becoming proportionately less common. If all other organisms and mixed infections are included with the Gram-positives, the result is more dramatic, with these organisms being causative in just 10% of infections between 1958 and 1979 but in 31% of infections between 1980 and 1997. The present review showed a slight reduction in mortality from septic shock over the years, although this result should be approached with caution. The heterogeneity of the articles and absence of a severity score for most of the studies limited our analysis. Furthermore, there was an increasing prevalence of Gram-positive causative organisms, and a change of the predominant origin of sepsis from the abdomen to the chest.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                AJN
                Am J Nephrol
                10.1159/issn.0250-8095
                American Journal of Nephrology
                S. Karger AG
                0250-8095
                1421-9670
                2001
                April 2001
                07 May 2001
                : 21
                : 2
                : 120-127
                Affiliations
                aNephrology Service, bPulmonary Critical Care Service, cInfectious Disease Service, Walter Reed Army Medical Center, Washington, D.C., and Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences, Bethesda, Md.; dCase Western Reserve University School of Medicine and NIDDK Medical Student Research Program, Cleveland, Ohio; eOrgan Transplantation Service, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Md., fEpidemiology, Statistics and Data System Branch, National Institute on Deafness and Other Communication Disorders (NIDCD), NIH, Bethesda, Md., and gNIDDK, NIH, Bethesda, Md., USA
                Article
                46234 Am J Nephrol 2001;21:120–127
                10.1159/000046234
                11359019
                © 2001 S. Karger AG, Basel

                Copyright: All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be translated into other languages, reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, microcopying, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher. Drug Dosage: The authors and the publisher have exerted every effort to ensure that drug selection and dosage set forth in this text are in accord with current recommendations and practice at the time of publication. However, in view of ongoing research, changes in government regulations, and the constant flow of information relating to drug therapy and drug reactions, the reader is urged to check the package insert for each drug for any changes in indications and dosage and for added warnings and precautions. This is particularly important when the recommended agent is a new and/or infrequently employed drug. Disclaimer: The statements, opinions and data contained in this publication are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publishers and the editor(s). The appearance of advertisements or/and product references in the publication is not a warranty, endorsement, or approval of the products or services advertised or of their effectiveness, quality or safety. The publisher and the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to persons or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content or advertisements.

                Page count
                Figures: 1, Tables: 4, References: 46, Pages: 8
                Product
                Self URI (application/pdf): https://www.karger.com/Article/Pdf/46234
                Categories
                Clinical Study

                Comments

                Comment on this article