ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Lower respiratory tract infection (LRIs) is very common both in terms of community-acquired infection and hospital-acquired infection. Sputum and bronchoalveolar lavage fluid (BALF) are the most important specimens obtained from patients with LRI. The choice of antibiotic with which to treat LRI usually depends on the antimicrobial sensitivity of bacteria isolated from sputum and BALF. However, differences in the antimicrobial sensitivity of pathogens isolated from sputum and BALF have not been evaluated. METHODS: A retrospective study was conducted to analyze the differences between sputum and BALF samples in terms of pathogen isolation and antimicrobial sensitivity in hospitalized patients with LRI. RESULTS: Between 2013 and 2015, quality evaluation of sputum samples was not conducted before performing sputum culture; however, between 2016 and 2018, quality evaluation of sputum samples was conducted first, and only quality-assured samples were cultured. The numbers of sputum and BALF in 2013-2015 were 15,549 and 1671, while those in 2016-2018 were 12,055 and 3735, respectively. The results of pathogen culture showed that Pseudomonas aeruginosa, Acinetobacter baumannii, Klebsiella pneumoniae, Staphylococcus aureus, Hemophilus influenzae, Escherichia coli, Stenotrophomonas maltophilia, and Streptococcus pneumoniae were in the top ten pathogens isolated from sputum and BALF. An antimicrobial susceptibility test showed that the susceptibility of BALF isolates to most antibiotics was higher compared with the susceptibility of sputum isolates, especially after quality control of sputum samples (2016-2018). CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that caution is needed in making therapeutic choices for patients with LRI when using antimicrobial sensitivity results from sputum isolates as opposed to BALF isolates.
Subject(s)
Bacterial Infections/microbiology , Bronchoalveolar Lavage Fluid/microbiology , Microbial Sensitivity Tests , Respiratory System/microbiology , Sputum/microbiology , Anti-Bacterial Agents/therapeutic use , Bacterial Infections/epidemiology , China/epidemiology , Escherichia coli/drug effects , Escherichia coli/isolation & purification , Female , Gram-Negative Bacteria/drug effects , Gram-Negative Bacteria/isolation & purification , Gram-Positive Bacteria/drug effects , Gram-Positive Bacteria/isolation & purification , Hospitals, Teaching , Humans , Male , Retrospective Studies , Staphylococcus aureus/isolation & purificationABSTRACT
Secondary bacterial infections are a potentially fatal complication of influenza infection. We aimed to define the impact of secondary bacterial infections on the clinical course and mortality in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients by comparison with influenza patients. COVID-19 (n = 642) and influenza (n = 742) patients, admitted to a large tertiary center in Israel and for whom blood or sputum culture had been taken were selected for this study. Bacterial culture results, clinical parameters, and death rates were compared. COVID-19 patients had higher rates of bacterial infections than influenza patients (12.6% vs. 8.7%). Notably, the time from admission to bacterial growth was longer in COVID-19 compared to influenza patients (4 (1-8) vs. 1 (1-3) days). Late infections (> 48 h after admission) with gram-positive bacteria were more common in COVID-19 patients (28% vs. 9.5%). Secondary infection was associated with a higher risk of death in both patient groups 2.7-fold (1.22-5.83) for COVID-19, and 3.09-fold (1.11-7.38) for Influenza). The association with death remained significant upon adjustment to age and clinical parameters in COVID-19 but not in influenza infection. Secondary bacterial infection is a notable complication associated with worse outcomes in COVID-19 than influenza patients. Careful surveillance and prompt antibiotic treatment may benefit selected patients.