Clinical Characteristics of 606 Patients with Community-Acquired Pyogenic Liver Abscess: A Six-Year Research in Yantai

Figures & data

Table 1 Clinical Features of Pyogenic Liver Abscess

Item		Number (Percentage)
Gender	Male	346(57.1%)
	Female	260(42.9%)
Average age (years old)	60.3±14.1
Underlying disease	Hypertension	89(14.7%)
	Diabetes mellitus	234(38.6%)
	Coronary heart disease	36(5.9%)
	Cerebrovascular disease	169(27.9%)
	Malignant tumors	67(11.1%)
	Benign biliary disease or operation	135(22.3%)
Clinical manifestations	Fever	563(92.9%)
	Fear of cold, shiver	453(74.7%)
	Abdominal pain	271(44.7%)
	Nausea, vomiting	202(33.3%)
	Fatigue, poor appetite	110(18.2%)
	Jaundice	38(6.3%)
	Dyspnea	35(5.7%)
	Headache dizziness	25(4.1%)
	Unconsciousness	11(1.8%)
Peak body temperature (°C)	>39.0	323(57.3%)
	≤39.0	240(42.7%)

Table 2 Results of Blood Culture and Pus Culture

Item	Blood Culture (n=414)	Pus Culture (n=409)
Positive (n (%))	106 (25.6)	284(69.4)
KPN	79(19.1)	233(56.3)
ESBL (+)	1(0.2)	13(3.1)
ESBL (-)	78(18.8)	220(53.1)
Escherichia coli	13(3.1)	29(7.0)
ESBL (+)	4(1.0)	18(4.3)
ESBL (-)	9(2.2)	9(2.2)
Enterococcus faecalis	3(0.7)	3(0.7)
Morganella morganii	1(0.2)	2(0.5)
Staphylococcus aureus	0	3(0.7)
Pseudomonas aeruginosa	1(0.2)	1(0.2)
Citrobacter freundii	0	1(0.2)
Others	9(2.2)	12(2.9)
Negative	308(76.4)	125(30.6)

Table 3 Analysis of Drug Resistance of Enterobacteriaceae Bacteria

	271 Cases with K. pneumoniae				35 Cases with E. coli
	18 ESBL+Sensitivity	18 ESBL+Drug Resistance	253 ESBL-Sensitivity	253 ESBL- Drug Resistance	17 ESBL+Sensitivity	17 ESBL+Drug Resistance	18 ESBL- Sensitivity	18 ESBL-Drug Resistance
	N (%)	N (%)	N (%)	N (%)	N (%)	N (%)	N (%)	N (%)
Amikacin	16 (88.9)	2 (11.1)	253 (100.0)	0 (0.0)	14 (82.4)	3 (17.6)	18 (100.0)	0 (0.0)
Imipenem	18(100.0)	0(0.0)	251 (99.2)	0 (%)	15 (88.2)	1 (5.9)	16 (88.9)	2 (11.1)
Tigecycline	18(100.0)	0(0.0)	240 (94.9)	10(3.9)	17 (100.0)	0 (0.0)	18 (100.0)	0 (0.0)
Ertapenem	18(100.0)	0(0.0)	250 (98.8)	0(0.0)	15 (88.2)	2 (11.8)	16 (88.9)	2 (11.1)
Cefoxitin	13(72.2)	5(27.8)	240 (94.9)	8(3.2)	10 (58.8)	5 (29.4)	13 (72.2)	1 (5.6)
Piperacillin/Tazobactam	17(94.4)	1(5.6)	250 (98.8)	2(0.8)	16 (94.1)	0 (0.0)	15 (88.2)	2 (11.1)
Cefoperazone-Sulbactam	16(88.9)	2(11.1)	251 (99.2)	2(0.8)	17 (100.0)	0 (0.0)	17 (94.4)	1 (5.6)
Cefepime	17(94.4)	1(5.6)	252 (99.6)	0(0.0)	12 (70.6)	5 (29.4)	16 (88.9)	2 (11.1)
Ceftriaxone	8(44.4)	10(55.6)	249 (98.4)	4(1.6)	3 (17.6)	14 (82.4)	15 (83.3)	2 (11.1)
Amoxicillin clavulanate	12(66.7)	6(33.3)	250 (98.8)	1(0.4)	8 (47.1)	4 (23.5)	8 (44.4)	4 (22.2)
Levofloxacin	14(77.8)	4(22.2)	250 (98.8)	3(11.9)	5 (29.4)	12 (70.6)	11 (61.1)	6 (33.3)
Trimethoprim/Sulfamethoxazole	13(77.2)	5(22.8)	243 (96.0)	10(3.9)	2 (11.8)	15 (88.2)	9 (50.0)	9 (50.0)

Figure 1 Empirical use of antibiotics.

Table 4 Comparison of Curative Effect Between the Two Groups with Different Treatment Methods

Item	Antibiotic Group (n=154)	Combined Group* (n=452)	P-value
Curative effect (n%)
Effective	143 (92.9%)	423 (93.6)	0.527
Ineffective	11 (7.1%)	29 (6.4%)
Length of hospital stay	14(9~21)	13(8~18)	0.029

Note: *Combined group: antibiotics combined with puncture and drainage.