Gut Colonization with Carbapenem-resistant Enterobacteriaceae Adversely Impacts the Outcome in Patients with Hematological Malignancies: Results of A Prospective Surveillance Study

Sarita Rani Jaiswal1,2, Satyanker Gupta2, Rekha Saji Kumar3, Amit Sherawat2, Ashok Rajoreya, Saroj K Dash3, Gitali Bhagwati3 and Suparno Chakrabarti1,2.

1 Manashi Chakrabarti Foundation, Kolkata, Dharamshila Narayana Superspeciality Hospital, New Delhi.
2 Department of Blood and Marrow Transplantation, Dharamshila Narayana Superspeciality Hospital, New Delhi.
3 Department of Microbiology, Dharamshila Narayana Superspeciality Hospital, New Delhi.

Corresponding author: Dr. Suparno Chakrabarti. Department of Blood and Marrow Transplantation & Hematology, Dharamshila Hospital and Research Centre, Vasundhara Enclave, New Delhi-110096, India. E-mail:

Published: May 1, 2018
Received: March 2, 2018
Accepted: March 30, 2018
Mediterr J Hematol Infect Dis 2018, 10(1): e2018025 DOI 10.4084/MJHID.2018.025
This article is available on PDF format at: 

This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License
(, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.


Background: Gut colonisation with carbapenem-resistant enterobacteriaceae (CRE) is a risk factor for CRE bacteremia and patients with haematological malignancies (HM) are at the highest risk of mortality.
Methods: We conducted a prospective surveillance study of gut colonisation with CRE and its impact on the outcome of 225 consecutive patients of HM over 28 months.
Results: The median age of the cohort was 46 years, the majority with acute leukaemia. 48 (21%) patients were colonised with CRE on admission (CAD). Another 46 patients were colonised with CRE in the hospital (CIH). The risk factors for CAD and CIH were a diagnosis of acute leukaemia and duration of hospital stay respectively. CRE accounted for 77% of infection-related mortality (IRM). The incidence of CRE bacteremia in CRE positive patients was 18% (17/94), and mortality in those with CRE bacteremia was 100%. IRM was 35.3% in CIH group compared to 10.5% in the CAD group (p=0.0001). IRM was highest in those with acute myeloid leukaemia (AML) and CIH (54.9% p=0.0001). On multivariate analysis, CIH was the most important risk factor for IRM (HR-7.2).
Conclusion: Our data demonstrate that a substantial proportion of patients with HM are colonised with CRE without prior hospitalisation, but those with nosocomial colonisation have the highest risk of mortality, particularly in those with AML.


The smallest of the organisms have always evolved mechanisms of survival amidst all odds. This concept is exemplified by the way pathogenic bacteria have developed resistance to each generation of antibiotics, which humans have designed to combat them. Gram-negative Enterobacteriaceae (GNE) have been most prolific in this regard.,[1] Development of carbapenems was hoped to provide a lasting solution to the menace of antibiotics resistance. However, true to its survival algorithm, GNE developed several pathways of resistance to carbapenems within a decade of their arrival.
Carbapenem resistance is due to either carbapenem-hydrolysing enzymes, which is the most common mechanism or changes in the outer membrane porins combined with overproduction of AmpC β lactamases.[2] The increasing incidence of infection by carbapenem-resistant enterobacteriaceae (CRE) is a significant public health challenge worldwide, especially in the developing countries.[3-5] It has acutely exposed the limitations of our antibiotics armamentarium.[6] Patients with haematological malignancies (HM) and the recipients of hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT) are particularly vulnerable to infections with CRE. Although precise data is scant, mortality associated with CRE is 60-100% in such patients.[2,7] The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has reported increased CRE infections in parts of the United States and Europeans countries.[2,8] India and other developing countries are worst affected by this emerging population of multidrug-resistant bacteria.[9] Despite the looming threat of a global epidemic, few studies[10,11] have evaluated the incidence and impact of CRE in the most vulnerable population of patients, i.e., those with HM.
We conducted a prospective longitudinal study over 28 months to evaluate the prevalence of colonisation with CRE in patients with haematological malignancies and its impact on the outcome of the patients undergoing treatment for these disorders.

Materials and Methods

This was a prospective observational study of gut colonisation with CRE in 225 consecutive patients with newly diagnosed HM admitted to our institution from October 2013 to January 2016, who underwent active treatment. Patients previously treated for the same condition or those with relapsed disease were not included in the study. The study was approved by the Institutional Review Board, and informed consent was obtained from patients.
Surveillance for CRE. Rectal swabs of all patients were collected in an aseptic manner at the bedside, during the first day of admission and repeated subsequently on a weekly basis for a continuous hospital stay or in subsequent entries. The duration of surveillance continued through the entire period of active treatment. However, efforts were made to collect samples on a weekly basis for the first four weeks on all patients whose therapies were scheduled at 3-4-week intervals.
After collection, the samples were immediately transported to the microbiology department, and subsequently cultured. Records of Identification and antibiotic sensitivity pattern of microorganism were maintained for all the patients. Enterobacteriaceae was identified based on standard laboratory protocols. All clinical specimens were inoculated on MacConkey agar and blood agar for isolation of gram-negative bacteria. After 18-24 hrs of incubation, the Mac-Conkey agar plates were examined for both lactose-fermenting (pink) colonies as well as non-lactose fermenting (pale) colonies. More than one colony morphology may represent distinct species. Wherever there was a difference in the colony morphology, colonies of each were sub-cultured in nutrient agar media (non-selective media). Isolates were subjected to a series of biochemical tests for identification, both manually or using automated identification system, Vitek2® (BioMérieux, France), if necessary. These colonies were identified up to species level using standard protocol.[12] Susceptibility testing was performed by disc diffusion (Kirby-Bauer) method following CLSI guidelines version 2016. Isolates showing positive disc screen test with ertapenem (10µg) and meropenem (10µg) or imipenem (10µg) were suspected as possible CRE, and they were further subjected to Modified Hodge Test (MHT) for detecting carbapenemases with ZnSO4 supplementation of culture media to increase the detection rate of NDM1.[13,14] Reference strains used as controls were E. coli ATCC 25922, Klebsiella pneumonia 700603 and Pseudomonas aeruginosa 27853. CRE was defined as non-susceptibility to anyone out of the three antibiotics tested. Since breakpoints of colistin and tigecycline were not mentioned for Enterobacteriaceae in CLSI guidelines, EUCAST guideline was followed. Aminoglycosides used were Amikacin and Gentamycin
Monitoring and management of patients with CRE colonization. Patients with a positive rectal swab screening on the first sample, without any sign or symptoms of infection, were defined as Colonised at Admission (CAD). Horizontal transmission during the current hospitalisation was hypothesised for CRE positive patients who had a negative screening at admission and were labelled as Colonized in Hospital (CIH).
CRE-positive patients were put under barrier nursing care precautions as per CDC guidelines. Patients were kept in isolation rooms whenever available or cohorted in double-occupancy rooms. Dedicated nurse and housekeeping staff were assigned to CRE positive patients in single or cohort allocation at each shift. The patients themselves were advised for regular sitz bath and cleaning with chlorhexidine-based cleansing solutions
CRE infections and therapy. All patients received levofloxacin as antibacterial prophylaxis on admission unless they were initiated on empirical or definitive antibiotics for febrile or infective episodes. Paired blood and urine samples were sent for culture before starting of empirical antibiotics for patients developing clinical pictures suggesting an infection. All patients were assessed on the basis of age, comorbidities, performance status, duration and severity of neutropenia, previous infections and exposure to broad-spectrum antibiotics (i.e., beta-lactams, quinolones, and aminoglycosides), and duration of central venous catheter placement. Patients with known CRE colonisation were started on a high dose of anti-pseudomonas carbapenems along with aminoglycosides. Antibiotics were escalated as per sensitivity report and the clinical status of patients. However, those with CRE colonisation had colistin and tigecycline added if there were signs of progression of sepsis or if there was a lack of response within 24-48 hours.
Statistics. Binary variables were compared between the two groups using chi-square test, and the continuous variables were analysed using independent sample t-test considering the Levenes test for equality of variances. Probabilities of survival were estimated using the Kaplan-Meier product-limit method. CRE – related mortality (CRE-RM) was defined as death attributable to microbiologically documented bacteremia caused by CRE, in the absence of other confounding factors. Infection-related mortality (IRM) was defined as death due to infectious causes verified on culture of blood or sterile body fluids, in the absence of other confounding factors. The cumulative incidence rates of IRM and CRE-RM were computed to take account of the presence of competing risks such as disease-progression or relapse. Multivariate analysis was carried out using Cox Regression analysis. The data were censored if a patient was treated with hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT) at the time of admission for the same. An outcome was determined to be significantly different if the observed P value was <0.05. All analyses were performed using statistical software IBM SPSS Statistics Version 22.


Patient Characteristics (Table 1). A total of 2263 samples from 225 patients with HM were evaluated. We further analysed them in two cohorts as per their rectal swab surveillance results as CRE positive and CRE negative. CRE positive subgroup was also categorised as colonised at admission (CAD) and colonised in the hospital (CIH) as described above.
The details of patients are mentioned in the Table 1. The median age of the entire study group was 46 years with a male predominance (61%). Acute leukaemia (45%) accounted for the majority, followed by lymphoma (33.8%), myeloma (8.9%) and the rest. The median duration of follow-up was 16 months (range 12 days-26 months). All patients were newly diagnosed at our institution had active disease at presentation. Patients with prior treatment and those with relapsed diseases were not included in the study.

Table 1 Table 1. Characteristics of patients with CAD, CIH and without CRE colonization.

Colonisation with CRE and Risk Factors. Out of 225 patients, 48 (21%) patients were colonised with CRE at admission. Another 46 patients with the prolonged hospital stay or on subsequent treatment had a positive CRE on surveillance, accounting for 26% of patients with CIH. The median time to acquisition of CRE amongst the CIH group was 3 weeks (range 2-13). Amongst the CRE positive cohort, the majority (n=56, 59.7%) were diagnosed with acute leukaemia and 37 (66%) of those had acute myeloid leukaemia (AML). The median duration of continuous hospital stay was higher amongst CIH (26 days, range 1-64) compared to non-CIH group (5 days, range 1-28), [p=0.0001].
Both univariate and multivariate analyses were carried out to ascertain the risk factors for CAD and CIH as detailed in Table 2. CAD tended to be higher in those with acute leukaemia (27/102 vs 20/123 without acute leukaemia, HR 1.85 95%CI 1.0-3.5, p=0.05) Duration of hospitalisation was a risk factor for CIH (HR 4.3 (95%CI 2.5-8.9). A diagnosis of AML was the strongest risk factor for overall CRE colonisation (37/58 vs 57/157 without AML, HR-2.5, 95%CI 1.1-5.6, p=0.03).

Table 2 Table 2. Univariate and Multivariate Analysis of Risk Factors for CRE Colonization and Mortality.

Microbiology of CRE colonisation. Klebsiella pneumoniae (KP) was the predominant microorganism isolated from the rectal swab sample of the patients as CRE pathogen amongst both CAD (53%) and CIH (83%) groups. Escherichia Coli was the other isolated organism accounting for the rest. Both pathogens were detected in 6% and 8% in the CAD and CIH groups respectively. Thus, Klebsiella species accounted for significantly higher colonisers amongst those with CIH (p=0.02). All isolates were positive by susceptibility testing as well as MHT.
All CRE isolates were resistant to all the carbapenems tested. Twelve out of 17 patients who died of CRE had Klebsiella species isolated from their blood culture (Table 3). Although all the species isolated were sensitive to colistin, seven were sensitive to tigecycline, and only one isolate was sensitive to aminoglycosides. Among five patients who were infected with E.Coli, four were resistant to aminoglycosides, and one was resistant to Tigecycline. Amongst those with CIH, 12 had documented CRE bacteremia, ten were Klebsiella species, and two were E.coli. Six of the isolates were sensitive to colistin alone. All but one patient had received meropenem or Imipenem in combination with aminoglycosides, tigecycline and colistin for over 48 hours before they succumbed to the CRE infection.

Table 3 Table 3. Antibiotic sensitivity of the CRE isolated on blood culture.

Infection-Related Mortality (IRM) And CRE-Related Mortality (CRE-RM). The overall IRM over a period of 26 months was 9.5% (22 patients). CRE-RM accounted for 17 of the 22 deaths. The other five patients succumbed to gram-negative sepsis (n=4, Pseudomonas aureginosa-2, Enterobacter-1, Acinetobacter Baumanii-1) and sudden cardiac death (n=1) while on treatment for CRE. No IRM or CRE-RM was noted in patients who were CRE negative throughout the study period. Thus, all IRM occurred exclusively in patients colonised with CRE. IRM and CRE-RM in CRE positive group were 24.7% (n=22/94, 95% CI 20-29.4) and 18.8% (17/94, 95% CI 14.7-22.9) respectively.
Those with acute leukaemia had a higher IRM (15/102, [14%; 95%CI 10.5-17.5] compared to 7/123, [5.8 %; 95%CI 3.7-7.9] in those without AL, log rank p=0.01). On subgroup analysis, 12 out of 58 with AML had IRM (22.9% 95%CI 16.8-29.0) compared to 10 out of 167 of those without AML (10/167, 5.5; 95%CI 3.7-7.3) (log rank p=0.0001). 
On further analysis, IRM was significantly higher in the CIH group compared to CAD group (17/46, [39.6%] vs 5/48 [10.5%], p=0.0001, Figure 1). CRE-RM was also significantly higher in the CIH group (14/46, [31.4% (95%CI 24.4- 38.4%)] vs 3/48, [6.6% (95%CI 2.9- 10.3%)] p=0.0001) compared to CAD group. This trend for mortality in patients with CIH was similar in patients with and without AL. However, the incidence of IRM was highest in those with AML and CIH (10/20) [54.9%; 95%CI 32.4-67.4%] compared to 2/17 in those with AML and CAD (11.8; 95%CI 4-18.6; p=0.0001).

Figure1 Figure 1. Cumulative Incidences of Infection-Related Mortality. 

CRE bacteremia occurred exclusively in those colonised with CRE. Thus, CRE colonisation was the most significant risk factor for CRE bacteremia (p=0.0001). No patient with CRE infection in the above cohort survived. Therefore, the incidence of CRE bacteremia in CRE positive patients was 18% (17/94), and mortality in those with CRE bacteremia was 100%. All the patients were neutropenic at the time of CRE bacteremia. The median time to the detection of bacteremia from diagnosis of CRE colonisation was 19 days (0-41). The median time to death from the onset of the febrile neutropenic episode was six days (1-14) and from the beginning of severe neutropenia was four days (1-8). On multivariate analysis, CIH was the single most important risk factor for both CRE-RM and IRM in patients with haematological malignancies (Table 2).


CRE, particularly the NDM-1 strain was reported to be highly prevalent in various parts of India in 2011.[4] This was confirmed by another study from South India, highlighting the prevalence of NDM as well as OXA-48 like strains.[15] However, few studies have emerged from the subcontinent highlighting the burden and the impact of CRE.[5,16,17] Despite recognition of CRE as a global public health threat, the study on the acquisition and the natural history of colonisation with CRE in patients with various HM remain sparse. A review in 2014 by Satlin et al. identified six studies reporting 35 patients of HM and HSCT in total, with a mortality rate of 50-100%.[2] While a few studies since then have studied the incidence CRE bacteremia and its risk factors in both adults and children, any longitudinal research on the incidence of colonisation and its long-term impact is lacking.[8,18-24]
We studied a cohort of 225 patients over a 28 months period with a minimum follow-up of 6 months. 21% of the patients were colonised with CRE at their first visit. Due to the use of non-selective media and in the absence of molecular typing, it is possible that we might have under-reported the incidence of colonisation. It is not possible to ascertain if such cases of CAD are genuinely community-acquired or these were acquired during infrequent hospital visits before reaching a tertiary care centre.[25] Patients with acute leukaemia are more prone to colonisation as is evident from our data. This could be due to multiple visits to health care set-ups before arrival at the tertiary care centre. This is augmented by the disease-induced neutropenia for prolonged periods in such patients.
What was even more striking was that another 26% of patients were colonised during the hospital stay, despite extremely stringent measures for barrier nursing in place. Such high rates of CIH highlight the perennial and obtrusive problem of nosocomial transmission of such microbes. CRE have a high propensity for horizontal transmission, and this has been highlighted in the past.[3] Colonisation in the hospital is not a mere physical event but is contributed by prolonged antibiotic usage, chemotherapy-induced breach of the mucosal barrier of the gut and most importantly both disease and therapy-induced severe and prolonged neutropenia.[18] These factors and their combinations are unique to the patients with HM and not generally witnessed in non-HM patients in intensive care or solid organ transplants. The combination of these factors is probably responsible for the high fatality rate of CRE infections in patients with HM. This was highlighted by a multicenter study from Italy where bloodstream infection with carbapenem-resistant KP was on the rise and was associated with a mortality rate of greater than 50% in patients with HM.[7]
Colonisation with CRE has been postulated to be a risk factor for CRE bacteremia, but the data remains scarce due to the lack of prospective nature of these studies. In a study from Italy, 86% of patients with CRE bacteremia were found to be colonised.[11] However, none of the studies alludes to a longitudinal follow-up in colonised patients. In our study, 42% patients were colonised with CRE in the study period and 18% of those developed CRE bacteremia during a course of therapy-induced neutropenia. CRE bacteremia was associated with 100% mortality, although all patients colonised with CRE were initiated on colistin and tigecycline within 24-48 hours of the onset of febrile neutropenia along with high doses of carbapenems. Thus, a delay in initiation of treatment is unlikely to be responsible for such high mortality. We noted that mortality in patients with CIH was much higher than patients with CAD. Majority of these patients succumbed within a week of the febrile episode and onset of neutropenia. It is possible that the nosocomial strains were more virulent as reflected by the pattern of antibiotic sensitivity.[26,27] Very few isolates were sensitive to aminoglycosides, and the majority of KP were resistant to tigecycline as well. Fosfomycin, another antibiotic which has efficacy against CRE was not available for clinical use during the study period. Resistance to colistin as well as tigecycline is on the rise as reported from both India as well as China.[27-31] Hence, with extreme limitations regarding antibiotic sensitivity, the outcome of such patients is likely to remain extremely poor.[32] However, several newer beta-lactamases such as avibactam, vaborbactam and relebactam in combination with ceftazidime and carbapenems might provide an alternative for CRE infections in the near future.[33,34] In addition, ceftolozane-tazobactam shows promise as a carbapenem-sparing agent against both Pseudomonas as well as enterobacteriaceae.[35]
Further to our study, we have introduced prophylactic granulocyte infusions for all patients colonised with CRE, who are febrile and likely to experience neutropenia over seven days. Given the paucity of effective antibiotics for CRE, it remains to be seen whether this approach benefits patients with CRE colonisation. Our study has addressed the issue of gut colonisation with CRE in patients with HM with reasonable diligence to be able to propose the following. Half of the patients with HM are likely to be colonised with CRE during the first few weeks of treatment despite the best possible preventive measures. With such high incidence of colonisation, resources are going to be severely challenged to prevent the spread of this organism amongst patients with HM in a busy tertiary care set-up. We are unlikely to save many such CRE infected patients with prolonged neutropenia with a limited array of antibiotics. Those with acute leukaemia, more so with AML remain at the highest risk of early fatality from CRE. Gut sterilisation has stayed unproven in such situations.[36] Rampant and random use of carbapenems is clearly responsible for the current state.[37] Unless a concerted effort at antibiotic stewardship and regulated use of these antibiotics are introduced with all intent and purpose in the healthcare sectors across the globe, the problem of CRE will assume epidemic proportions beyond geographical borders in the near future.


  1. Davies J, Davies D: Origins and evolution of antibiotic resistance. Microbiol Mol Biol Rev 2010, 74(3):417-433. PMid:20805405 PMCid:PMC2937522  
  2. Satlin MJ, Jenkins SG, Walsh TJ: The global challenge of carbapenem-resistant Enterobacteriaceae in transplant recipients and patients with hematologic malignancies. Clin Infect Dis 2014, 58(9):1274-1283. PMid:24463280 PMCid:PMC4038783  
  3. Gupta N, Limbago BM, Patel JB, Kallen AJ: Carbapenem-resistant Enterobacteriaceae: epidemiology and prevention. Clin Infect Dis 2011, 53(1):60-67. PMid:21653305     
  4. Kumarasamy KK, Toleman MA, Walsh TR, Bagaria J, Butt F, Balakrishnan R, Chaudhary U, Doumith M, Giske CG, Irfan S et al.: Emergence of a new antibiotic resistance mechanism in India, Pakistan, and the UK: a molecular, biological, and epidemiological study. Lancet Infect Dis 2010, 10(9):597-602.  
  5. Saseedharan S, Sahu M, Pathrose EJ, Shivdas S: Act Fast as Time Is Less: High Faecal Carriage of Carbapenem-Resistant Enterobacteriaceae in Critical Care Patients. J Clin Diagn Res 2016, 10(9):DC01-DC05.  
  6. Falagas ME, Lourida P, Poulikakos P, Rafailidis PI, Tansarli GS: Antibiotic treatment of infections due to carbapenem-resistant Enterobacteriaceae: systematic evaluation of the available evidence. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2014, 58(2):654-663. PMid:24080646 PMCid:PMC3910850  
  7. Trecarichi EM, Pagano L, Martino B, Candoni A, Di Blasi R, Nadali G, Fianchi L, Delia M, Sica S, Perriello V et al: Bloodstream infections caused by Klebsiella pneumoniae in onco-hematological patients: clinical impact of carbapenem resistance in a multicentre prospective survey. Am J Hematol 2016, 91(11):1076-1081. PMid:27428072     
  8. Montagnani C, Prato M, Scolfaro C, Colombo S, Esposito S, Tagliabue C, Lo Vecchio A, Bruzzese E, Loy A, Cursi L et al: Carbapenem-resistant Enterobacteriaceae Infections in Children: An Italian Retrospective Multicenter Study. Pediatr Infect Dis J 2016, 35(8):862-868. PMid:27100130     
  9. Zhang R, Liu L, Zhou H, Chan EW, Li J, Fang Y, Li Y, Liao K, Chen S: Nationwide Surveillance of Clinical Carbapenem-resistant Enterobacteriaceae (CRE) Strains in China. EBioMedicine 2017, 19:98-106. PMid:28479289 PMCid:PMC5440625  
  10. Caselli D, Cesaro S, Fagioli F, Carraro F, Ziino O, Zanazzo G, Meazza C, Colombini A, Castagnola E, Infectious Diseases Study Group of the Italian Association of Pediatric H et al: Incidence of colonization and bloodstream infection with carbapenem-resistant Enterobacteriaceae in children receiving antineoplastic chemotherapy in Italy. Infect Dis (Lond) 2016, 48(2):152-155. PMid:26393496    
  11. Micozzi A, Gentile G, Minotti C, Cartoni C, Capria S, Ballaro D, Santilli S, Pacetti E, Grammatico S, Bucaneve G et al: Carbapenem-resistant Klebsiella pneumoniae in high-risk haematological patients: factors favouring spread, risk factors and outcome of carbapenem-resistant Klebsiella pneumoniae bacteremias. BMC Infect Dis 2017, 17(1):203. PMid:28283020 PMCid:PMC5345173  
  12. CLSI: Performance Standards for Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing. In: Enterobacteriaceae. Clinical and laboratory Standard Institute; 2016: 52-59.  
  13. Cohen Stuart J, Leverstein-Van Hall MA, Dutch Working Party on the Detection of Highly Resistant M: Guideline for phenotypic screening and confirmation of carbapenemases in Enterobacteriaceae. Int J Antimicrob Agents 2010, 36(3):205-210. PMid:20598859     
  14. Girlich D, Poirel L, Nordmann P: Value of the modified Hodge test for detection of emerging carbapenemases in Enterobacteriaceae. J Clin Microbiol 2012, 50(2):477-479. PMid:22116154 PMCid:PMC3264163  
  15. Bakthavatchalam YD, Anandan S, Veeraraghavan B: Laboratory Detection and Clinical Implication of Oxacillinase-48 like Carbapenemase: The Hidden Threat. J Glob Infect Dis 2016, 8(1):41-50. PMid:27013843 PMCid:PMC4785756  
  16. Datta P, Gupta V, Singla N, Chander J: Asymptomatic colonization with carbapenem resistant enterobacteriaceae (CRE) in ICU patients and its associated risk factors: Study from North India. Indian J Med Microbiol 2015, 33(4):612-613. PMid:26470985     
  17. Rai S, Das D, Niranjan DK, Singh NP, Kaur IR: Carriage prevalence of carbapenem-resistant Enterobacteriaceae in stool samples: A surveillance study. Australas Med J 2014, 7(2):64-67. PMid:24611074 PMCid:PMC3941578  
  18. Pouch SM, Satlin MJ: Carbapenem-resistant Enterobacteriaceae in special populations: Solid organ transplant recipients, stem cell transplant recipients, and patients with hematologic malignancies. Virulence 2017, 8(4):391-402. PMid:27470662 PMCid:PMC5477691  
  19. Rodrigues Perez LR: Carbapenem-Resistant Enterobacteriaceae: A Major Prevalence Difference due to the High Performance of Carbapenemase Producers when compared to the Nonproducers. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2015, 36(12):1480-1482. PMid:26424090     
  20. Satlin MJ, Cohen N, Ma KC, Gedrimaite Z, Soave R, Askin G, Chen L, Kreiswirth BN, Walsh TJ, Seo SK: Bacteremia due to carbapenem-resistant Enterobacteriaceae in neutropenic patients with hematologic malignancies. J Infect 2016, 73(4):336-345. PMid:27404978 PMCid:PMC5026910  
  21. Schwartz-Neiderman A, Braun T, Fallach N, Schwartz D, Carmeli Y, Schechner V: Risk Factors for Carbapenemase-Producing Carbapenem-Resistant Enterobacteriaceae (CP-CRE) Acquisition Among Contacts of Newly Diagnosed CP-CRE Patients. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2016, 37(10):1219-1225. PMid:27452597     
  22. Swaminathan M, Sharma S, Poliansky Blash S, Patel G, Banach DB, Phillips M, LaBombardi V, Anderson KF, Kitchel B, Srinivasan A et al: Prevalence and risk factors for acquisition of carbapenem-resistant Enterobacteriaceae in the setting of endemicity. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2013, 34(8):809-817. PMid:23838221     
  23. van Loon K, Voor In 't Holt AF, Vos MC: Clinical epidemiology of carbapenem-resistant Enterobacteriaceae: a systematic review and meta-analyses. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2017. PMid:29038269     
  24. Weber DJ, Rutala WA, Kanamori H, Gergen MF, Sickbert-Bennett EE: Carbapenem-resistant Enterobacteriaceae: frequency of hospital room contamination and survival on various inoculated surfaces. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2015, 36(5):590-593. PMid:25661968     
  25. Bar-Yoseph H, Hussein K, Braun E, Paul M: Natural history and decolonization strategies for ESBL/carbapenem-resistant Enterobacteriaceae carriage: systematic review and meta-analysis. J Antimicrob Chemother 2016, 71(10):2729-2739. PMid:27317444     
  26. Manoharan A, Barla GS, Peter R, Sugumar M, Mathai D: Multidrug resistance mediated by co-carriage of extended-spectrum beta-lactamases, AmpC and New Delhi metallo-beta-lactamase-1 genes among carbapenem-resistant Enterobacteriaceae at five Indian medical centres. Indian J Med Microbiol 2016, 34(3):359-361. PMid:27514962     
  27. Chen L, Kreiswirth BN: Convergence of carbapenem-resistance and hypervirulence in Klebsiella pneumoniae. Lancet Infect Dis 2017.  
  28. Khare V, Gupta P, Haider F, Begum R: Study on MICs of Tigecycline in Clinical Isolates of Carbapenem Resistant Enterobacteriaceae (CRE) at a Tertiary Care Centre in North India. J Clin Diagn Res 2017, 11(3):DC18-DC21.  
  29. Kumar M: Colistin and Tigecycline Resistance in Carbapenem-Resistant Enterobacteriaceae: Checkmate to Our Last Line Of Defense. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2016, 37(5):624-625. PMid:27077365     
  30. Pogue JM, Marchaim D, Abreu-Lanfranco O, Sunkara B, Mynatt RP, Zhao JJ, Bheemreddy S, Hayakawa K, Martin ET, Dhar S et al: Fosfomycin activity versus carbapenem-resistant Enterobacteriaceae and vancomycin-resistant Enterococcus, Detroit, 2008-10. J Antibiot (Tokyo) 2013, 66(10):625-627. PMid:23715037     
  31. Poirel L, Kieffer N, Liassine N, Thanh D, Nordmann P: Plasmid-mediated carbapenem and colistin resistance in a clinical isolate of Escherichia coli. Lancet Infect Dis 2016, 16(3):281.  
  32. Livermore DM, Warner M, Mushtaq S, Doumith M, Zhang J, Woodford N: What remains against carbapenem-resistant Enterobacteriaceae? Evaluation of chloramphenicol, ciprofloxacin, colistin, fosfomycin, minocycline, nitrofurantoin, temocillin and tigecycline. Int J Antimicrob Agents 2011, 37(5):415-419. PMid:21429716     
  33. Zhanel GG, Lawrence CK, Adam H, Schweizer F, Zelenitsky S, Zhanel M, Lagace-Wiens PRS, Walkty A, Denisuik A, Golden A et al: Imipenem-Relebactam and Meropenem-Vaborbactam: Two Novel Carbapenem-beta-Lactamase Inhibitor Combinations. Drugs 2018, 78(1):65-98. PMid:29230684     
  34. van Duin D, Lok JJ, Earley M, Cober E, Richter SS, Perez F, Salata RA, Kalayjian RC, Watkins RR, Doi Y et al: Colistin Versus Ceftazidime-Avibactam in the Treatment of Infections Due to Carbapenem-Resistant Enterobacteriaceae. Clin Infect Dis 2018, 66(2):163-171. PMid:29020404     
  35. Giacobbe DR, Bassetti M, De Rosa FG, Del Bono V, Grossi PA, Menichetti F, Pea F, Rossolini GM, Tumbarello M, Viale P et al: Ceftolozane/tazobactam: place in therapy. Expert Rev Anti Infect Ther 2018:1-14. PMid:29493397     
  36. Rieg S, Kupper MF, de With K, Serr A, Bohnert JA, Kern WV: Intestinal decolonization of Enterobacteriaceae producing extended-spectrum beta-lactamases (ESBL): a retrospective observational study in patients at risk for infection and a brief review of the literature. BMC Infect Dis 2015, 15:475. PMid:26511929 PMCid:PMC4624661  
  37. Van Boeckel TP, Gandra S, Ashok A, Caudron Q, Grenfell BT, Levin SA, Laxminarayan R: Global antibiotic consumption 2000 to 2010: an analysis of national pharmaceutical sales data. Lancet Infect Dis 2014, 14(8):742-750.  


Abstract views:


Article Metrics

Metrics Loading ...

Metrics powered by PLOS ALM

Copyright (c) 2018 Mediterranean Journal of Hematology and Infectious Diseases

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
© PAGEPress 2008-2018     -     PAGEPress is a registered trademark property of PAGEPress srl, Italy.     -     VAT: IT02125780185