↓ Skip to main content

Carbapenem resistance, inappropriate empiric treatment and outcomes among patients hospitalized with Enterobacteriaceae urinary tract infection, pneumonia and sepsis

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Infectious Diseases, April 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (64th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (62nd percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
177 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
243 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 resistance, inappropriate empiric treatment and outcomes among patients hospitalized with Enterobacteriaceae urinary tract infection, pneumonia and sepsis
Published in
BMC Infectious Diseases, April 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12879-017-2383-z
Pubmed ID
Authors

Marya D. Zilberberg, Brian H. Nathanson, Kate Sulham, Weihong Fan, Andrew F. Shorr

Abstract

Drug resistance among gram-negative pathogens is a risk factor for inappropriate empiric treatment (IET), which in turn increases the risk for mortality. We explored the impact of carbapenem-resistant Enterobacteriaceae (CRE) on the risk of IET and of IET on outcomes in patients with Enterobacteriaceae infections. We conducted a retrospective cohort study in Premier Perspective database (2009-2013) of 175 US hospitals. We included all adult patients with community-onset culture-positive urinary tract infection (UTI), pneumonia, or sepsis as a principal diagnosis, or as a secondary diagnosis in the setting of respiratory failure, treated with antibiotics within 2 days of admission. We employed regression modeling to compute adjusted association of presence of CRE with risk of receiving IET, and of IET on hospital mortality, length of stay (LOS) and costs. Among 40,137 patients presenting to the hospital with an Enterobacteriaceae UTI, pneumonia or sepsis, 1227 (3.1%) were CRE. In both groups, the majority of the cases were UTI (51.4% CRE and 54.3% non-CRE). Those with CRE were younger (66.6+/-15.3 vs. 69.1+/-15.9 years, p < 0.001), and more likely to be African-American (19.7% vs. 14.0%, p < 0.001) than those with non-CRE. Both chronic (Charlson score 2.0+/-2.0 vs. 1.9+/-2.1, p = 0.009) and acute (by day 2: ICU 56.3% vs. 30.4%, p < 0.001, and mechanical ventilation 35.8% vs. 11.7%, p < 0.001) illness burdens were higher among CRE than non-CRE subjects, respectively. CRE patients were 3× more likely to receive IET than non-CRE (46.5% vs. 11.8%, p < 0.001). In a regression model CRE was a strong predictor of receiving IET (adjusted relative risk ratio 3.95, 95% confidence interval 3.5 to 4.5, p < 0.001). In turn, IET was associated with an adjusted rise in mortality of 12% (95% confidence interval 3% to 23%), and an excess of 5.2 days (95% confidence interval 4.8, 5.6, p < 0.001) LOS and $10,312 (95% confidence interval $9497, $11,126, p < 0.001) in costs. In this large US database, the prevalence of CRE among patients with Enterobacteriaceae UTI, pneumonia or sepsis was comparable to other national estimates. Infection with CRE was associated with a four-fold increased risk of receiving IET, which in turn increased mortality, LOS and costs.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 243 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 243 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 38 16%
Student > Ph. D. Student 31 13%
Student > Master 30 12%
Other 20 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 19 8%
Other 42 17%
Unknown 63 26%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 73 30%
Immunology and Microbiology 18 7%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 17 7%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 11 5%
Engineering 7 3%
Other 35 14%
Unknown 82 34%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 12 November 2019.
All research outputs
#6,853,042
of 22,971,207 outputs
Outputs from BMC Infectious Diseases
#2,155
of 7,709 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#108,162
of 310,140 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Infectious Diseases
#62
of 170 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,971,207 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 69th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,709 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.6. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 71% 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 310,140 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 64% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 170 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 62% of its contemporaries.