Epidemiology and Clinical Outcomes of Fusobacterium Infections: A Six-Year Retrospective Study.

Background and Objectives: Anaerobic bacteria like Fusobacterium can lead to severe and life-threatening infections. The inherent complexities in the isolation of these bacteria may result in diagnostic and therapeutic delays, thereby escalating both morbidity and mortality rates. We aimed to examine data from patients with infections due to Fusobacterium to gain insights into the epidemiology and clinical outcomes of patients with these infections. Methods and Results: We conducted a retrospective analysis of clinical data from a cohort of patients with cultures positive for Fusobacterium species at a tertiary care medical center in the United States. Between 2009 and 2015, we identified 96 patients with cultures positive for Fusobacterium. Patients could be categorized into three groups based on the site of primary infection. Patients with head and neck infections constituted 37% (n 36). Patients with infections of other soft tissue sites accounted for 38.5% (n 37). Patients with anaerobic bacteremia due to Fusobacterium formed 24% (n 23) of the cohort. Surgical intervention coupled with antibiotic therapy emerged as cornerstones of management for patients with head and neck or other soft tissue infections, who generally exhibited more favorable outcomes. Patients with bacteremia were older, more likely to have malignancy, and had a high mortality rate. When speciation was available, Fusobacterium necrophorum was the most frequently isolated species. Conclusions: Our retrospective analysis of epidemiology and clinical outcomes of Fusobacterium infections revealed three distinct cohorts. Patients with head, neck, or soft tissue infections had better outcomes than those with bacteremia. Our findings highlight the importance of employing management strategies based on infection site and underlying comorbidities in patients with Fusobacterium infections. Further research is needed to investigate the optimal therapeutic strategies and identify prognostic indicators to improve clinical outcomes for these complex infections.

Fluid Resuscitation and Sepsis Management in Patients with Chronic Kidney Disease or End-Stage Renal Disease: Scoping Review.

Managing sepsis and fluid resuscitation in patients with chronic kidney disease or end-stage renal disease is challenging for health care providers. Nurses are essential for early identification and treatment of these patients. Nurse education on assessing perfusion and implementing 3-hour bundled care can improve mortality rates in patients with sepsis. In this scoping review, initial screening identified 1176 articles published from 2015 through 2023 in the National Library of Medicine database; 29 articles were included in the literature summary and evidence synthesis. A systematic review meta-analysis was not possible because of data heterogeneity. The review revealed that most patients with chronic kidney disease or end-stage renal disease received more conservative resuscitation than did the general population, most likely because of concerns about volume overload. However, patients with chronic kidney disease or end-stage renal disease could tolerate the standard initial fluid resuscitation bolus of 30 mL/kg for sepsis. Outcomes in patients with chronic kidney disease or end-stage renal disease were similar to outcomes in patients without those conditions, whether they received standard or conservative fluid resuscitation. Patients who received the standard (higher) fluid resuscitation volume did not have increased rates of complications such as longer duration of mechanical ventilation, increased mortality, or prolonged length of stay. Using fluid responsiveness to guide resuscitation was associated with improved outcomes. The standard initial fluid resuscitation bolus of 30 mL/kg may be safe for patients with chronic kidney disease or end-stage renal disease and sepsis. Fluid responsiveness could be a valuable resuscitation criterion, promoting better decision-making by multidisciplinary teams. Further research is required.