Infective endocarditis by Serratia species: a systematic review

Abstract

Serratia species are facultative anaerobes, non-spore-forming, motile Gram-negative bacteria. Serratia spp. are currently thought to cause a variety of infections, such as bacteremia, urinary tract infections, and pneumonia, as well as other, less common infections, including ocular infections or skin and soft tissue infections. On the other hand, Infective Endocarditis (IE) is an infrequent disease with notable morbidity and mortality. Even though IE is rarely caused by Serratia spp., these infections can be quite problematic due to the lack of experience in their management. This study aimed to systematically review all published cases of IE by Serratia spp. in the literature. A systematic review of PubMed, Scopus, and Cochrane library (through 13^th May 2021) for studies providing epidemiological, clinical, microbiological data as well as data on treatment and outcomes of IE by Serratia spp. was performed. In total, 50 studies, containing data for 72 patients, were included. A prosthetic valve was present in 18.1%. The mitral valve was the most commonly infected site, followed by the aortic valve. The diagnosis was facilitated by transthoracic echocardiography in 34.7%, while the diagnosis was set at autopsy in 22.4%. Fever, sepsis, and embolic phenomena were the most common clinical presentations, followed by heart failure. Aminoglycosides, cephalosporins, and carbapenems were the most commonly used antimicrobials. Clinical cure was noted only in 53.5%, while overall mortality was 47.2%. Having surgery along with antimicrobial treatment was independently associated with reduced overall mortality. IE by Serratia spp. was more likely to be associated with intravenous drug use, and to present with heart failure and embolic phenomena compared to IE by other non-HACEK Gram-negative bacilli, while mortality was also higher in IE by Serratia spp.

Keywords:

• Endocarditis
• systematic review
• Serratia
• Chromobacterium

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Funding

This research has not received funding from any source.

Authors’ contributions

PI conceived the idea; PI, KA and DS collected and analyzed the data; and PI, KA, DS and DPK led the writing.