Retrospective observational study reports a 20% bloodstream infection rate in COVID-19 patients with sepsis, highlighting the need for targeted empirical antimicrobial therapy.
Background: Coronavirus is known to cause respiratory tract infection with illness ranging from mild to severe disease depending upon morbidity. This retrospective observational study was done to determine the prevalence of bloodstream infections in COVID-19 patients admitted in a tertiary care centre in civil hospital, Ahmedabad. The study objectives were as follows: (a)To determine the Methods: prevalence of blood stream infection in COVID-19 positive patients. (b)Antimicrobial susceptibility testing of these isolates as per standard guidelines. All blood cultures received from COVID-19 positive patients with signs and symptoms of BSI admitted into various wards and ICUs of COVID-19 hospital were included in the study. Blood samples were received in automated blood culture bottles and monitored on automated blood culture system. ID and susceptibility of all the isolates were performed on automated system (VITEK 2). Results: A total of 9936 patients which were further reported rRT-PCR positive for SARS nCoV2 during the period of August 2020 to July 2022. 700 patients developed sepsis like syndrome and were subjected to blood culture. The Blood culture positivity was 140/700 (20%). 85 (61%) patients needed intensive care in ICU. Signicant correlation of blood culture positivity was found with parameters like ICU admission, presence of an indwelling device, underlying comorbidity, and adverse clinical outcome. Conclusion: The incidence rate and the risk of developing BSI increased with ICU stay. Staphylococcus aureus and Enterococcus was the commonest amongst Gram positive bacteria. Gram negative secondary bacterial infections such as Acinetobacter baumannii and Klebsiella pneumoniae were more common with patients on ventilator. The susceptibility pattern would help in decision making of empirical antibiotic therapy.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Sharma et al. (2024) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: