↓ Skip to main content

Carbapenem-resistant Klebsiella pneumoniae colonization in pediatric and neonatal intensive care units: risk factors for progression to infection

Overview of attention for article published in Brazilian Journal of Infectious Diseases, February 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (60th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
74 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
184 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Carbapenem-resistant Klebsiella pneumoniae colonization in pediatric and neonatal intensive care units: risk factors for progression to infection
Published in
Brazilian Journal of Infectious Diseases, February 2016
DOI 10.1016/j.bjid.2015.12.004
Pubmed ID
Authors

Hacer Akturk, Murat Sutcu, Ayper Somer, Derya Aydın, Rukiye Cihan, Aslı Ozdemir, Asuman Coban, Zeynep Ince, Agop Citak, Nuran Salman

Abstract

Little is known about factors associated with carbapenem-resistant Klebsiella pneumoniae infections in pediatric patients, who are initally colonized with carbapenem-resistant Klebsiella pneumoniae. A retrospective case-control study was conducted involving pediatric and neonatal intensive care units throughout a five-year period (January 2010-December 2014). Clinical and microbiological data were extracted from Hospital Infection Control Committee reports and patients' medical records. Risk factors were assessed in carbapenem-resistant Klebsiella pneumoniae colonized patients who developed subsequent systemic infection (cases) and compared to carbapenem-resistant Klebsiella pneumoniae colonized patients who did not develop infection (controls). Throughout the study period, 2.6% of patients admitted to neonatal intensive care units and 3.6% of patients admitted to pediatric intensive care units had become colonized with carbapenem-resistant Klebsiella pneumoniae. After a mean of 10.6±1.9 days (median: 7 days, range: 2-38 days) following detection of colonization, 39.0% of the carbapenem-resistant Klebsiella pneumoniae colonized patients in pediatric intensive care units and 18.1% of carbapenem-resistant Klebsiella pneumoniae colonized patients in neonatal intensive care units developed systemic carbapenem-resistant Klebsiella pneumoniae infection. Types of systemic carbapenem-resistant Klebsiella pneumoniae infections included bacteremia (n=15, 62.5%), ventilator-associated pneumonia (n=4, 16.6%), ventriculitis (n=2, 8.3%), intraabdominal infections (n=2, 8.3%), and urinary tract infection (n=1, 4.1%). A logistic regression model including parameters found significant in univariate analysis of carbapenem resistant Klebsiella pneumoniae colonization and carbapenem resistant Klebsiella pneumoniae infection groups revealed underlying metabolic disease (OR: 10.1; 95% CI: 2.7-37.2), previous carbapenem use (OR: 10.1; 95% CI: 2.2-40.1), neutropenia (OR: 13.8; 95% CI: 3.1-61.0) and previous surgical procedure (OR: 7.4; 95% CI: 1.9-28.5) as independent risk factors for carbapenem-resistant Klebsiella pneumoniae infection in patients colonized with carbapenem-resistant Klebsiella pneumoniae. Out of 24 patients with carbapenem resistant Klebsiella pneumoniae infection, 4 (16.6%) died of carbapenem-resistant Klebsiella pneumoniae sepsis. Asymptomatic colonization with carbapenem-resistant Klebsiella pneumoniae in intensive care units of pediatric departments should alert health care providers about forthcoming carbapenem-resistant Klebsiella pneumoniae infection. Those carbapenem-resistant Klebsiella pneumoniae colonized patients at risk of developing infection due to carbapenem-resistant Klebsiella pneumoniae may be targeted for interventions to reduce subsequent infection occurence and also for timely initiation of empirical carbapenem-resistant Klebsiella pneumoniae active treatment, when necessary.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 184 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 184 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 26 14%
Student > Bachelor 22 12%
Researcher 21 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 15 8%
Student > Postgraduate 12 7%
Other 36 20%
Unknown 52 28%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 71 39%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 13 7%
Immunology and Microbiology 13 7%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 7 4%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 2%
Other 13 7%
Unknown 64 35%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 26 June 2016.
All research outputs
#16,345,315
of 25,806,080 outputs
Outputs from Brazilian Journal of Infectious Diseases
#360
of 812 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#226,158
of 410,100 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Brazilian Journal of Infectious Diseases
#5
of 15 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,806,080 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 812 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.4. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 53% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 410,100 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 15 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 60% of its contemporaries.