ABSTRACT
Background
Although colonization is an established risk factor for bloodstream infection (BSI) due to identical strain, prior infection with resistant bacteria should also be considered during the management of febrile neutropenia. This study aimed to analyze the rate and etiology of recurrent BSI in allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplant (allo-HCT) recipients to determine its potential impact on decision-making.
Materials and methods
The retrospective study included 284 allo-HCT recipients. Recurrent BSI was defined as a new BSI episode occurring in a period of more than 72 hours after antibiotic withdrawal.
Results
Overall, 104 patients (36.6%) developed at least one BSI, and 23 of them (22.1%) experienced recurrent BSI episodes (n = 30). Median time to recurrent BSI was 41 days (range 5–526 days). Recurrent BSI was associated with second allo-HCT (p < 0.0001), primary (p = 0.021), and secondary graft failure (p = 0.024). Carbapenem-resistant gram-negative bacteria were more common during recurrent BSI episodes (23.7% vs. 6.0%; p = 0.003). In only 17.5% patients experiencing recurrent BSI episode and in only 3.9% of patients with at least one BSI episode phenotypically identical recurring pathogen was isolated.
Conclusions
In view of low rate of recurrent BSI due to identical pathogen, empirical antimicrobial therapy should not be based on data on previous BSI episodes.
Declaration of interest
The authors have no relevant affiliations or financial involvement with any organization or entity with a financial interest in or financial conflict with the subject matter or material discussed in the manuscript. This includes employment, consultancies, honoraria, stock ownership or options, expert testimony, grants or patents received or pending, or royalties.
Reviewer disclosures
Peer reviewers on this manuscript have no relevant financial or other relationships to disclose.
Author contributions
All authors meet the ICMJE authorship criteria. All authors contributed to conception and design of the study, obtained and analyzed the data, and contributed to interpretation of data. MA drafted the manuscript; GK and EP critically revised the manuscript; all authors approved the final version of the manuscript.