Next Article in Journal
Special Issue: Diversity of Extremophiles in Time and Space
Next Article in Special Issue
In Vitro Activity of 22 Antibiotics against Achromobacter Isolates from People with Cystic Fibrosis. Are There New Therapeutic Options?
Previous Article in Journal
Classification of In Vitro Phage–Host Population Growth Dynamics
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Review

Achromobacter spp. Surgical Site Infections: A Systematic Review of Case Reports and Case Series

1
Department of Hospital Hygiene, CHU Martinique, F-97200 Fort-de-France, Martinique
2
Department of Internal Medicine, CH Gap, F-05007 Gap, France
3
Department of Infectious Diseases, CHU Martinique, F-97200 Fort-de-France, Martinique
4
Unité Mixte de Recherche 1058 : Pathogenesis and Control of Chronic and Emerging Infections, 34000 Montpellier, France
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Microorganisms 2021, 9(12), 2471; https://doi.org/10.3390/microorganisms9122471
Submission received: 8 October 2021 / Revised: 26 October 2021 / Accepted: 27 October 2021 / Published: 30 November 2021

Abstract

:
Achromobacter species are isolated from rare but severe healthcare-associated infections, including surgical site infections. They are considered to preferentially infect immunocompromised patients but so far with limited evidence. We conducted a systematic review on Achromobacter spp. surgical site infections (SSIs) to determine if such infections were indeed more commonly associated with immunocompromised patients. The secondary objective was to describe the characteristics of infected patients. Eligible articles had to be published before 30 September 2020 and to report Achromobacter spp. SSIs across all surgical specialties excluding ophthalmology. Analyses were performed on individual data without meta-analysis. Cases were divided into 2 subgroups: one group which had either prosthesis or implant and the other group which did not. A first selection led to a review of 94 articles, of which 37 were analyzed. All were case reports or case series and corresponded to 49 infected patients. Most of the patients were under 65 years of age and had undergone a heart or digestive surgery followed by deep infection with no co-infecting pathogens. Nine out of the 49 cases were immunocompromised, with similar distribution between the two subgroups (16.6% and 20%, respectively). This review suggests that Achromobacter spp. SSIs do not preferentially target immunocompromised patients.

1. Introduction

Surgical Site Infections (SSIs) are a major cause of increased morbidity and mortality, prolonged hospital length of stay, hospital readmissions, and increased health care costs in surgical patients [1]. According to the results of the latest Nosocomial Infections National Prevalence Survey (NINPS), SSIs accounted for 20% of all the Healthcare-Associated Infections (HAIs) in 2017 in the metropolitan and the overseas regions of France and represented the second most common HAI after the urinary tract infections [2]. The bacteria commonly isolated in SSIs are Staphylococcus aureus and Enterobacteriaceae, but environmental bacteria such as Pseudomonas aeruginosa account for a significant proportion of the agents involved in such infections [3].
Achromobacter species, especially A.xylosoxidans, have also been isolated from rare but severe HAIs including SSIs [4,5,6,7,8,9]. Initially described as low-virulence and sporadic contaminants, these bacteria have been emerging in health care facilities for the past few decades. Knowledge about these microorganisms is continuously increasing [10] with some virulence factors identified [11] and some case reports describing severe infections with fatal outcomes [11,12,13,14,15]. Most authors present Achromobacter spp. as an opportunistic pathogen that preferentially infects immunocompromised patients, but so far with insufficient amounts of evidence [6,16,17,18,19,20,21,22].
We hypothesize that patients with Achromobacter SSIs are not predominantly immunocompromised. A preliminary search in MEDLINE via PubMed database and in PROSPERO registry showed the lack of systematic review on Achromobacter spp. surgical site infections, neither published, nor in development. To explore our hypothesis, we conducted a systematic review on Achromobacter spp. SSIs across all surgical specialties. Our primary objective was to determine if Achromobacter spp. SSIs preferentially target immunocompromised patients. The secondary objective was to describe the main demographic and clinical characteristics of infected patients.

2. Materials and Methods

This systematic review was conducted following the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) recommendation.
The research question was: do Achromobacter spp. mediated SSIs preferentially target immunocompromised patients?

2.1. Search Strategy

A comprehensive literature search was performed in the following databases, registries and search engines: MEDLINE via PubMed, Cochrane Library, Clinicaltrials.gov, GoogleScholar.com, Theses.fr. The search was completed by the analysis of “similar situations” on e-sin.santepubliquefrance.fr, the French reporting platform for healthcare-associated infections, and by the examination of the discussion board of cpias-ile-de-france.fr, a French website for the prevention of healthcare-associated infections. The search covered all publications up to and, including 30 September 2020, with no start date specified. Search terms were defined by two independent researchers and adapted to each repository by combining vocabulary, relevant MeSH terms, and keywords such as “Achromobacter”, “Alcaligenes xylosoxidans”, “surgery”, “surgical site infection”, “wound infection“, “nosocomial infection”, ” healthcare-associated infection”, “bacteraemia”, “endocarditis”, “meningitis”, “bacteraemia”, “ventriculitis”, “mediastinitis”,” abscess”, “peritonitis”, “burns”. When available, filters were applied to select studies in English and French languages and include those involving human subjects only. Additional studies were identified from the references provided by retrieved studies. The detailed search strategy adapted to each database or repository is provided as Supplementary File S1.

2.2. Eligibility Criteria

A study was eligible for inclusion if it described at least one case of either deep or superficial Achromobacter spp. SSI in patients across all ages and included documentation of clinical and microbiological criteria, regardless of the length of the time interval between surgery and infection. The eligibility included the SSIs occurring either in the surgical wounds, spaces, or organs, and/or on prosthetic materials or implants which were placed during surgery. All types of surgery were considered except for ophthalmic surgery.
Achromobacter spp. infection, either superficial or deep, was considered an SSI if it met the clinical and microbiological criteria specified by the Center for Disease Control [23]. With regard to the timing of onset, the French definition, which is more precise for this criterion, was preferred. An SSI was then defined as an HAI if it occurred within 30 days post-surgical procedure that did not involve an implant or prosthesis, and within one year when either implant or prosthesis was involved in the surgery process. Beyond this period, an SSI was considered a community-acquired infection unless authors established a clear link between surgery and infection [24].
All included articles had to provide sufficient information on the patients’ immune status. Unless the “immunocompetent” status was clearly announced, patients with at least one of the following criteria described in the NINPS protocol, i.e., solid tumor or hematological malignancy, organ transplantation, radiotherapy, chemotherapy, immunosuppressive therapy, high-dose prednisolone (>5 mg/kg/day) or prolonged (>30 days) use of corticosteroids or Human Immunodeficiency Virus infection with <500 CD4+ cells/mm3 [25] were defined as immunocompromised. In contrast, co-morbidity factors (i.e., diabetes mellitus, obesity), which are known to predispose individuals to various infections [26], were not taken into account.
Articles dealing with fundamental science and general guidelines were excluded as well as those that described the surgical site colonization only.

2.3. Study Selection

Study selection was performed by two independent researchers using the Microsoft Excel software. Titles of potentially eligible studies were integrated into an Excel spreadsheet. By applying a color code and alphabetic classification, duplicates were eliminated and selection on titles and abstracts was performed online. The two independent researchers examined the selected full-text materials to ensure the accuracy and the eligibility of the criteria. In case of a disagreement between the two researchers, an opinion from a third researcher was requested. The case was discussed between the three researchers until a consensus was reached.
For recent studies (publication year > 2010), when the patient’s immune status or individual data were not provided, the authors of the studies were contacted for the missing data.

2.4. Data Collection Process and Items

Independent double extraction of data from eligible, full-text articles was performed by two researchers, each following the same extraction form. For each article, the following data were recorded: name of the first author, the year of publication, demographics (age and sex), immune status, surgical data (surgical specialty, date of surgery, surgical site), infection data (the time interval between surgery and diagnosis, depth, identification of Achromobacter spp., clinical criteria for diagnosis, associated microorganisms), treatments and outcome. The time period between surgery and diagnosis was defined as an interval between the surgery and the date of the first positive sample with Achromobacter spp..
Cases with some missing data were accepted as long as the information on the patient’s immune status was available.

2.5. Data Analysis

The analysis was carried out on the individual data file using the Microsoft Excel software. Categorical data were expressed as percentages (numbers). Quantitative data were expressed as a median [min-max] and means +/− standard deviation.

3. Results

3.1. Study Selection

PRISMA 2020 flow diagram (Figure 1) describes the different stages of study selection. A total of 820 records were identified by our literature search. Among these records, 94 were duplicates and therefore, removed. After examining the titles and abstracts, 548 records were excluded according to our eligibility criteria. Ninety four full-text materials were examined in their entirety. The authors from 5 cases were contacted for missing information but these authors were unresponsive. Finally, 37 articles were included in the analysis [4,6,7,8,12,13,14,16,17,18,19,20,21,22,27,28,29,30,31,32,33,34,35,36,37,38,39,40,41,42,43,44,45,46,47,48,49].

3.2. Study Characteristics

The extensive literature search led to the inclusion of case reports or case series only. These cases were published between 1960 and 2020. Thirty articles described isolated case reports; seven articles described clustered cases of infections i.e., liver abscesses, meningitis, skin and soft tissue infections, bacteremia, pediatric infections, and infections associated with medical devices [4,6,13,20,29,30,31]. SSIs were extracted from these cluster cases. Finally, a total of 49 different cases were included in the study.
According to Köppen’s climatic classification [50], 36 cases (73%) were from tropical, humid subtropical, or hot summer Mediterranean climates which are characterized by high heat and humidity.
The main characteristics of the final selections are shown in Table 1.

3.3. Descriptive Analysis of Included Cases

Since our final selection was limited to cases and cluster cases with significant methodological heterogeneity, it was not possible to carry out a meta-analysis. Therefore, results will be presented in narrative form. For descriptive analysis, two subgroups were defined according to the presence (subgroup 1, n = 24) or absence (subgroup 2, n = 25) of either prosthesis or implant (Table 1). Because of the small sample size, no statistical comparisons were performed on these two subgroups.

3.3.1. Demographics

The median and mean ages were similar between subgroup 1 (45.5 years [min: 0.16, max: 86]; mean = 44 +/− 23.4) and subgroup 2 (47 years [min: 4, max: 74]; mean = 45.3 +/− 19); Forty of the 49 patients included (81.6%) were under 65 years of age. The M/F sex ratios were 13/11 in subgroup 1 and 16/9 in subgroup 2 (Table 1).

3.3.2. The Patients’ Immune Status

Only 9 of the 49 recorded cases (18.3%) were immunocompromised, with similar distribution between the two subgroups (16.6% and 20%, respectively) (Table 1). Five patients had solid tumors, 1 patient had Hodgkin’s lymphoma, 1 patient had rheumatoid arthritis, 1 patient had undergone splenectomy and 1 patient was a burn victim. Therefore, the remaining 81.7% of the cases were immunocompetent patients.

3.3.3. Surgical Data and Infections

Surgical data are provided in Table 2. The main pathologies leading to surgery were heart diseases (30.6%, n = 15), digestive pathologies (22.4%, n = 11) and neurological impairments (14.3%, n = 7). The 80% of total cases presented were deep infections.
In subgroup 1, the most represented surgery was cardiac surgery (54.1%, n = 13); 95.9% (n = 23) of SSIs were deep infections and occurred mainly after thoracotomy (9 endocarditis, 3 mediastinitis, and 2 abscesses). Only one superficial wound infection was described after total knee arthroplasty (case no 10). The time of onset was recorded for 21 out of 24 SSIs and 16 (76.2%) met the criteria for nosocomial infection. In other words, only 5 infections occurred more than one year after surgery.
In subgroup 2, the most represented surgery was digestive surgery (32%, n = 8); 68% (n = 17) of SSIs were deep infections and occurred mainly after digestive surgery (1 peritonitis and 7 abscesses). The time of onset was described for 19 out of 25 SSIs and 9 (47.3%) occurred within one month of surgery, thus meeting the criteria for a nosocomial infection.

3.3.4. Isolated Strains

The species responsible for the infection was identified as Achromobacter xylosoxidans in 84.4% of the included cases (n = 38) (Table 2). For the 11 other cases, identification led to Achromobacter spp. (n = 9), Achromobacter Group B (n = 1) and Achromobacter Group Vd Biovar (n = 1). The method of strain identification was indicated in 51% of cases (n = 25) only. The most commonly used method was culture and biochemical tests (n = 17). Only 4 studies involving a total of 8 cases including our previous case report utilized molecular detection methods. Of these studies, only one case described the detection and identification via nrdA gene sequencing [12].
Most cases in both subgroup 1 (91.6%, n = 22) and 2 (72%, n = 18) were not co-infected. The main co-infecting microorganisms detected in both subgroups belonged to the family of Enterobacteriaceae.

3.3.5. Treatments and Outcomes

Detailed information about antibiotic therapy was available for 87.7% of cases (n = 43) (Table 2). For 27 of these 43 cases (62.7%), an empirical antibiotic therapy was initiated. Antibiotic sensitivity of isolated strains was provided for 41 cases out of 49. Based on available data, a total of 30 out of 41 cases had an antibiotic therapy adapted to strain sensitivity (73.2%). Carbapenems (Imipenem, Meropenem and Ertapenem) were the most prescribed drugs (n = 18), followed by Cotrimoxazole® (n = 8), Quinolones (n = 6) and Tazocillin® (n = 7).
Outcome was indicated for 49 cases. Ten patients died. Global mortality rate was 20.4% with 25% (n = 6) for subgroup 1 and 16% (n = 4) for subgroup 2. Only 2 out of 9 immunocompromised patients died (22.2%).
In subgroup 1, 12 patients (50%) underwent surgical revision involving the removal of prosthetic material and all 12 patients survived. Conversely, 50% of the remaining patients (n = 6) who did not undergo such removal died. In this subgroup, 19 out of 24 (79.1%) patients received an antibiotic therapy adapted to sensitivity but 5 of these treated patients died with implanted materials still in place.

3.3.6. Origin of Infection

A possible origin of infection was proposed for 14 cases. The most suspected sources were contaminated waters (Table 2). Three cases were extracted from an outbreak associated with 6 Achromobacter spp. cerebral ventriculitis in the neurosurgical ward and the source was confirmed as a contaminated aqueous chlorhexidine solution [31]. For other suspected environmental sources, no analysis was performed.

4. Discussion

This review supports our hypothesis stating that Achromobacter spp. SSIs do not preferentially target immunocompromised patients. To our knowledge, this is the first systematic review of post-surgical infections associated with this bacterium. It provides an overview of reported cases over a period of 60 years showing that the majority of published cases on Achromobacter spp. SSIs involve individuals under the age of 65 who mainly develop deep infections after a heart surgery involving either prosthesis or implant or after a digestive surgery that did not involve prosthetic materials. As we have previously suggested [4], these infections seem to preferentially affect patients living in warm and humid environments. However, this observation needs to be confirmed by further studies.
The very low rate of immunocompromised patients is consistent with our hypothesis and also with a recent publication demonstrating that both immunosuppressed and immunocompetent populations can be potential targets for Achromobacter spp. healthcare-associated infections [51]. These findings also strengthen our previous finding showing a higher rate (56.1%) of such infections occurring in immunocompetent patients [4]. In addition, a thorough examination of the articles revealed that while the link between immunosuppression and Achromobacter spp. infections is initially proposed by almost all the studies either in the introduction or in the discussion section, the data presented in these studies suggest otherwise [6,16,17,18,19,20,21,22]. In our study, we consider actual immunosuppression (defined in the NINPS protocol), not the weakening of the immune system due to chronic illness, implanted devices, even hospitalization or surgery itself; such criteria favor any type of infection related to any microorganism, especially opportunistic ones [26]. Studying such a relationship would not have been of interest since it is already known.
The majority of the cases included are said to be infected with Achromobacter xylosoxidans. However, the validity of such a level of identification remains questionable. To our knowledge, the nrdA gene sequencing is the only method that allows identification of Achromobacter isolates down to species level [52] and so far, there is only one study (authored by this group) that utilized this method of detection [12]. On another hand, it is important to note that many of the studies included in this review predate the time when molecular and genetic methods of bacterial identifications were available.
Lack of a greater number of series, heterogeneity of available evidence base, and publication bias are potential limitations of this study and these limitations may preclude us from reaching definitive conclusions. Moreover, we did not conduct the assessment of the methodological quality of each included finding, which may result in confounding, selection, and information bias.
The lower rate of immunocompromised patients could be interpreted as being related to the extreme scarcity of Achromobacter spp. infections among immunocompetent patients, leading to more frequent publications of these rare cases. But on the other hand, Achromobacter spp. SSIs are sufficiently rare to be reported regardless of the immune status of patients.
Similarly, our study shows higher death rates among the reported cases (26.1% for subgroup 1 and 14.3% for subgroup 2) than those associated with other SSI-causing microorganisms (from 2.5 to 6% depending on the study) [53]. Surprisingly, the death rate was not higher among immunocompromised patients. The high mortality rates may be related to publication bias with a majority of severe cases being published at the expense of mild cases. Fifty percent of these deaths can be explained by the pathology itself, i.e., severe cardiac damage requiring implants or artificial valves and leading to mediastinitis or endocarditis. On the other hand, deaths following cholecystectomy in patients without other comorbidity are more questionable. Retrospective studies on Achromobacter spp. HAIs report death rates of 22% [54] and 15% populations [9] which are similar rates to those observed in the present study. The hypothesis of high mortality rates being associated specifically with Achromobacter spp. itself, therefore, cannot be fully ruled out.
Some of the delays between the surgery and the infection were extremely lengthy. The lengthiest was an intra-cardiac abscess occurring 29 years after surgery [35]. Either a greater number of extremely late infections have been published because of their impressive character, or there is a specific cause of delayed infection. Perhaps Achromobacter spp. deep SSIs develop very slowly over time while remaining in transient dormancy and most likely in biofilm communities; delayed diagnosis may also be responsible for the prolonged onset because of misidentification or mild, nonspecific clinical signs at initial diagnosis [14,17,29]; finally, delayed Achromobacter infections are more likely due to delayed acquisition in the hospital environment.
Prevention and treatment of SSI itself present significant challenges and it can be further exacerbated by the intrinsic nature of bacteria causing the infection such as seen in many SSI cases associated with Achromobacter spp.. First, this bacterium was shown to acquire resistance to the antiseptic solutions used for skin preparation. Three cases were concerned by the growth of this microorganism inside aqueous chlorhexidine solutions [31]. Second, Achromobacter spp. is able to grow in sterile distilled water [55]. We previously isolated this organism from a patient who was treated with V.A.C. therapy associated with sterile water irrigation. It is plausible that this treatment may have supported the growth of this microorganism [12] and therefore worsened the existing infection. Third, Achromoabcter spp is known to form biofilms [55,56] which favor the transfer of resistance genes as well as the development of bacterial tolerance to antimicrobial agents. Biofilm growth may explain a higher rate of deep infections observed in patients with prostheses or implants and subsequent challenges these patients encountered during antibiotic therapy. Although many of the patients seem to have benefited from adapted antibiotic therapy, the removal of implanted materials appears to be the only treatment that ensured survival. In accordance with the literature, Carbapenem were the most prescribed antibiotics regardless of the presence or absence of foreign materials in patients’ bodies. Unfortunately, frequent and widespread usage of these molecules has favored the increase in acquired resistance [57]. New therapeutics against carbapenem-resistant Gram-negative non-fermenters are emerging; Cefiderocol, a new generation cephalosporin, has recently been shown efficacious in the treatment of Achromobacter post-operative osteomyelitis [57].

5. Conclusions

This review suggests that Achromobacter spp. surgical site infections can affect patients independent of their immune status. Patients living in hot and humid climates may be at a greater risk of acquiring Achromobacter spp. SSIs but effective preventive measures can be proposed only when the source of such infections are clearly identified. The association between Achromobacter spp. infections and climate needs to be thoroughly investigated. Future studies including a greater number of case series and similar reviews extended to all types of healthcare-associated infections caused by Achromobacter spp. are recommended.

Supplementary Materials

The following are available online at https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/microorganisms9122471/s1; Supplementary File S1: Detailed search strategy.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, K.M.-S.; methodology, C.D.; validation, K.M.-S., C.D., and A.C.; formal analysis, E.R.; investigation, E.R. and K.M.-S.; writing—original draft preparation, E.R.; writing—review and editing, K.M.-S.; visualization, A.C.; supervision, K.M.-S. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This work was supported by the Department of Clinical Research of the University Hospital of Martinique.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

The datasets supporting the findings of this article are included within the article.

Acknowledgments

The authors are very grateful to Laura Gage for her kind English language revision and to Moustapha Drame for his methodological help.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Tucci, G.; Romanini, E.; Zanoli, G.; Pavan, L.; Fantoni, M.; Venditti, M. Prevention of surgical site infections in orthopaedic surgery: A synthesis of current recommendations. Eur. Rev. Med. Pharmacol. Sci. 2019, 23, 224–239. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Santé Publique France. National Prevalence Survey of Nosocomial Infections and Anti-Infective Treatments in Healthcare Facilities. Results 2017. Available online: https://www.santepubliquefrance.fr/maladies-et-traumatismes/infections-associees-aux-soins-et-resistance-aux-antibiotiques/infections-associees-aux-soins/documents/enquetes-etudes/enquete-nationale-de-prevalence-des-infections-nosocomiales-et-des-traitements-anti-infectieux-en-etablissements-de-sante-mai-juin-2017 (accessed on 13 September 2019). (In French)
  3. Santé Publique France. National Prevalence Survey of Surgical Site Infections in Healthcare Facilities. Results, 2017. Available online: http://www.cpias-ile-de-france.fr/surveillance/iso/RappRAISIN2017.pdf (accessed on 1 February 2019). (In French)
  4. Marion-Sanchez, K.; Pailla, K.; Olive, C.; Le Coutour, X.; Derancourt, C. Achromobacter spp.. healthcare associated infections in the French West Indies: A longitudinal study from 2006 to 2016. BMC Infect Dis. 2019, 19, 795. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Barragán, E.P.; Pérez, J.S.; Corbella, L.; Orellana, M.A.; Fernández-Ruiz, M. Achromobacter xylosoxidans bacteremia: Clinical and microbiological features in a 10-year case series. Rev. Esp. Quimioter. 2018, 31, 268–273. [Google Scholar]
  6. Derber, C.; Elam, K.; Forbes, B.; Bearman, G. Achromobacter species endocarditis: A case report and literature review. Can. J. Infect. Dis. Med. Microbiol. 2011, 22, e17–e20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  7. Vinod, V.; Kumar, A.; Sanjeevan, K.; Dinesh, K.; Karim, S. Perinephric abscess due to Achromobacter xylosoxidans following de-roofing of renal cyst. Surg. Infect. 2013, 14, 422–423. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Padmaja, K.; Lakshmi, V.; Rao, M.; Mishra, R.; Rosy, C.; Sritharan, V. Prosthetic valve endocarditis with aortic root abscess due to Achromobacter xylosoxidans subsp denitrificans—A rare case report. Int. J. Infect Control. 2013, 9, 1–5. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Gómez-Cerezo, J.; Suárez, I.; Ríos, J.J.; Pena, P.; Garcia de Miguel, M.J.; De José, M.; Monteagudo, O.; Linares, P.; Barbado-Cano, A.; Vázquez, J.J. Achromobacter xylosoxidans bacteraemia: A 10-year analysis of 54 cases. Eur. J. Clin. Microbiol. Infect. Dis. 2003, 22, 360–363. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Jeukens, J.; Freschi, L.; Vincent, A.T.; Emond-Rheault, J.G.; Kukavica-Ibrulj, I.; Charette, S.J.; Levesque, R.C. A pan-genomic approach to understand the basis of host adaptation in Achromobacter. Genome Biol. Evol. 2017, 9, 1030–1046. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  11. Swenson, C.E.; Sadikot, R.T. Achromobacter respiratory infections. Ann. Am. Thorac. Soc. 2015, 12, 252–258. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Marion-Sanchez, K.; Lion, F.; Olive, C.; Cailleaux, G.; Roques, F. Mediastinitis superinfected by Achromobacter xylosoxidans. A case report. J. Infect. Chemother. 2018, 24, 987–989. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Asano, K.; Tada, S.; Matsumoto, T.; Miyase, S.; Kamio, T.; KSakurai, K.; Lida, M. A novel bacterium Achromobacter xylosoxidans as a cause of liver abscess: Three case reports. J. Hepatol. 2005, 43, 362–365. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Olson, D.; Paul, M.; Hoeprich, D. Postoperative infection of an aortic prosthesis with Achromobacter xylosoxidans. West J. Med. 1982, 136, 153–154. [Google Scholar]
  15. Arroyo, J.C.; Jordan, W.; Lema, M.W.; Brown, A. Diversity of plasmids in Achromobacter xylosoxidans isolates responsible for a seemingly common-source nosocomial outbreak. J. Clin. Microbiol. 1987, 25, 1952–1955. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  16. Ozer, B.; Serarslan, Y.; Duran, N.; Akdemir, G.; Onlen, Y. Postoperative meningitis due to a rare pathogen: Alcaligenes xylosoxidans. Cent. Eur. J. Med. 2009, 4, 532–535. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Gupta, V.; Nirkhiwale, S.; Gupta, P.; Phatak, S. Achromobacter xylosoxidans mesh related infection: A case of delayed diagnosis and management. J. Infect. 2012, 64, e1–e5. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  18. Van Hal, S.; Stark, D.; Marriott, D.; Harkness, J. Achromobacter xylosoxidans subsp. xylosoxidans prosthetic aortic valve infective endocarditis and aortic root abscesses. J. Med. Microbiol. 2008, 57, 525–527. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  19. Sawant, A.; Srivatsa, S.; Castro, L. Alcaligenes xylosoxidans endocarditis of a prosthetic valve and pacemaker in a 62-year-old woman. Tex. Heart Inst. J. 2013, 40, 95–98. [Google Scholar]
  20. Tsay, R.; Lin, L.; Chiou, C.; Liao, J.; Chen, C.; Ch Liu, C.; Young, T. Alcaligenes xylosoxidans bacteremia: Clinical features and microbiological characteristics of isolates. J. Microbiol. Immunol. Infect. 2005, 38, 194–199. [Google Scholar]
  21. Ahn, Y.; Kim, N.H.; Shin, D.H.; Park, O.Y.; Kim, W.; Jeong, M.H.; Cho, J.G.; Park, J.C.; Kang, J.C. Pacemaker lead endocarditis caused by Achromobacter xylosoxidans. J. Korean Med. Sci. 2004, 19, 291–293. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Bhattarai, M.; Papireddy, M.; Kulkarni, S. A rare case of complicated Achromobacter xylosoxidans endocarditis and its successful management. Abstract published at Hospital Medicine 2016, March 6–9, San Diego, Calif. J. Hosp. Med. 2016, 11, Abstract 439. [Google Scholar]
  23. United States Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. National Healthcare Safety Network surgical site infection definition criteria. In World Health Organization, Protocol for Surgical Site Infections Surveillance with the Focus on Setting with Limited Resources; WHO Document Production Services: Geneva, Switzerland, 2018. [Google Scholar]
  24. Ministère de la santé, de la jeunesse et des sports DGS/DHOS, CTINILS. Definitions of Healthcare Associated Infections. 2007; (in French). Available online: https://solidarites-sante.gouv.fr/IMG/pdf/rapport_vcourte.pdf (accessed on 1 May 2007).
  25. Santé Publique France. National Prevalence Survey of Nosocomial Infections and Anti-Infective Treatments in Healthcare Facilities. Auditor’s guide 2017. Available online: http://www.cpias.fr/ES/surveillance/2017_ENP2017_Guide_Complet_4avril2017.pdf (accessed on 4 April 2017). (In French)
  26. Harrop, J.S.; Styliaras, J.C.; Ooi, Y.C.; Radcliff, K.E.; Vaccaro, A.R.; Wu, C. Contributing factors to surgical site infections. J. Am. Acad. Orthop. Surg. 2012, 20, 94–101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Ferroir, J.P.; Milleron, B.; Denis, M.; Guillard, A. Un germe exceptionnellement à l’origine de méningites, l’ Achromobacter xylosoxidans. La Presse Médicale 1991, 20, 1090. [Google Scholar]
  28. Gelfand, M.S.; Cleveland, K.O. Successful treatment with doripenem of ventriculitis due to Achromobacter xylosoxidans. QJM 2014, 107, 923–925. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  29. Holmes, B.; Snell, J.; Lapage, S. Strains of Achromobacter xylosoxidans from clinical material. J. Clin. Path. 1977, 30, 595–601. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  30. Santaeufemia, S.; Amador, R.; Alonso, M.; Pinedo, B.; Mena-Bernal, H.; Talavera, G. Alcaligenes xylosoxidans Infections in Children; Five Cases in Different Sites. 2014. Available online: https://ibimapublishing.com/articles/PRIJ/2014/519461/ (accessed on 11 March 2014).
  31. Shigeta, S.; Yasunaga, Y.; Honzumi, K.; Okamura, H.; Kumata, R.; Endo, S. Cerebral ventriculitis associated with Achromobacter xylosoxidans. J. Clin. Path. 1978, 31, 156–161. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  32. Tena, D.; Martínez, N.; Losa, C.; Solís, S. Skin and soft tissue infection caused by Achromobacter xylosoxidans: Report of 14 cases. Scand. J. Infect. Dis. 2014, 46, 130–135. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  33. D’Amato, R.; Salemi, M.; Mathews, A.; Cleri, D.; Reddy, G. Achromobacter xylosoxidans (Alcaligenes xylosoxidans subsp. xylosoxidans) meningitis associated with a gunshot wound. J. Clin. Microbial. 1988, 26, 2425–2426. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  34. Teng, S.; Ou, T.; Hsieh, Y.; Lee, W.; Lin, Y.; Lee, W. Complicated intra-abdominal infection caused by extended drug–resistant Achromobacter xylosoxidans. J. Microbiol. Immunol. Infect. 2009, 42, 176–180. [Google Scholar]
  35. Rafael, A.; Keshavamurthy, S.; Sepulveda, E.; Miranda, C.; Okamoto, T.; Pettersson, G. Intracardiac abscess with cutaneous fistula secondary to ventricular septal defect repair simulating sternal wound infection. Tex. Heart Inst. J. 2014, 41, 324–326. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  36. Tokuyasu, H.; Fukushima, T.; Hirofumi Nakazaki, H.; Shimizu, E. Infective endocarditis caused by Achromobacter xylosoxidans: A Case Report and Review of the Literature. Intern Med. 2012, 51, 1133–1138. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  37. Taylor, P.; Fischbein, L. Prosthetic knee infection due to Achromobacter xylosoxidans. J. Rheumatol. 1992, 19, 992–993. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  38. Réseau de Prévention des Infections Associées aux Soins, Forum Infections Nosocomiales. Available online: https://www.preventioninfection.fr/le-forum-repias/ (accessed on 30 April 2004).
  39. Rotter, J.; Graffeo, C.; Perry, A.; Gilder, H.; Wilson, J.; Link, M. Polymicrobial intracerebral abscess growing Mycobacterium avium complex and Achromobacter xylosoxidans: Case report and literature review. World Neurosurg. 2020, 141, 441–447. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Sari, S.; Yeşilyurt, E.; Yılmaz, N.; Gürel, A.; Gürtan, E.; Sanal, L. Achromobacter xylosoxidans infection in urinary tract in a secondary kidney stone patient: Case Report. J. Surg. Med. 2018, 2, 406–407. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Tripathi, N.; Koilara, N.; Kato, H.; Singh, T.; Karri, K.; Thakur, K. First documented case of percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) tube-associated bacterial peritonitis due to Achromobacter species with literature review. Case Rep. Gastrointest. Med. 2020, 16, 4397930. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  42. Lofgren, R.P.; Nelson, A.E.; Crossley, K.B. Prosthetic valve endocarditis due to Achromobacter xylosoxidans. Am. Heart J. 1981, 101, 502. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Zhi Yang, N.; George, F.; Kah Woon, L. Resolution of concomitant Achromobacter xylosoxidans burn wound infection without adjustment of antimicrobial therapy. Indian J. Plast. Surg. 2014, 47, 137–140. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Linde, L.M.; Heins, H.L. Bacterial endocarditis following surgery for congenital heart disease. NEJM 1960, 233, 65–69. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. McKinley, K.P.; Laundy, T.J.; Masterton, R.G. Achromobacter Group B replacement valve endocarditis. J. Infect. 1990, 20, 262–263. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Lee, S.C.; Nam, C.H.; Park, I.S.; Yoon, J.Y.; Jung, K.A.; Hwang, S.H. Achromobacter xylosoxidans infection following total knee arthroplasty. J. Korean Orthop. Assoc. 2014, 49, 385–388. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  47. Revati, S.; Renoy, H. A rare instance of recurrent Achromobacter infection in an immunocompetent individual. Int. J. Contemp. Med. Res. 2019, 6, 35–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Appelbaum, P.C.; Campbell, D.B. Pancreatic abscess associated with Achromobacter group Vd biovar 1. J. Clin. Microbiol. 1980, 12, 282–283. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  49. Demirel, A.; Inan, N.; Akpinar, H.; Iris, N.E. Hospital-acquired urosespis caused by Achromobacter xylosoxidans. Mediterr. J. Infect. Microb. Antimicrob. 2015, 4. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Köppen Climate Classification. Available online: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Köppen_climate_classification (accessed on 1 September 2004).
  51. Awadh, H.; Mansour, M.; Aqtash, O.; Shweihat, Y. Pneumonia due to a rare pathogen: Achromobacter xylosoxidans, subspecies denitrificans. Case Rep. Infect Dis. 2017, 3969682. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  52. Spilker, T.; Vandamme, P.; Lipuma, J.J. Identification and distribution of Achromobacter species in cystic fibrosis. J. Cyst. Fibros. 2013, 12, 298–301. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  53. Astagneau, P. La mortalité attribuable aux infections Hospitalières. ADSP 2002, 38, 27–29. [Google Scholar]
  54. Liu, C.; Guo, J.; Yan, W.; Jin, Y.; Pan, F.; Fang, X.; Qin, L.; Liu, C. Hospital-acquired pneumonia due to Achromobacter xylosoxidans in the elderly: A single-center retrospective study in Beijing. J. Infect. Dev. Ctries. 2017, 11, 10–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  55. Marion-Sanchez, K.; Olive, C.; Platon, M.G.; Cesarine, M.; Derancourt, C.; Pailla, K. Achromobacter xylosoxidans in hospital environments: Achromobacter xylosoxidans in hospital environments: Still waters run deep! Trans. R. Soc. Trop. Med. Hyg. 2020, 114, 470–472. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Günther, F.; Merle, U.; Frank, U.; Gaida, M.M.; Mutters, N.T. Pseudobacteremia outbreak of biofilm-forming Achromobacter xylosoxidans—environmental transmission. BMC Infect Dis. 2016, 16, 584. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  57. Isler, B.; Kidd, J.T.; Stewart, A.G.; Harris, P.; Paterson, D.L. Achromobacter infections and treatment options. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 2020, 64, e01025-20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Figure 1. PRISMA flow diagram.
Figure 1. PRISMA flow diagram.
Microorganisms 09 02471 g001
Table 1. Case characteristics and surgical procedures.
Table 1. Case characteristics and surgical procedures.
Scheme 1. Surgical Procedures Including Prosthesis or Implant
Case CharacteristicsSurgical Procedures
Case
no.
Author year (ref)Country State/city Climate *Age (Y)SexMain Disease and
Associated Pathologies
Immune StatusType of SurgeryDescription
1Derber 2011
[6]
USA Virginie Cfa54FTetralogy of Fallot, Blalock-Taussig shunt as a child, total repair as a teenagerCompHeartBovine pulmonary valve replacement
2Gelfand 2014 [28]USA
Tennessee Dfa
29FSpina Bifida and placement of a ventriculo-peritoneal shunt in early childhood.CompNeurologicalReplacement of VP shunt
3Gupta 2012 [17]India
Lucknow Csa
65MSmall paraumbilical herniaCompDigestive Open mesh repair
4Van Hal 2008 [18]Australia Sydney Cfa37MNative valve endocarditis, intravenous drug user CompHeartAortic valve
replacement
5Olson 1981 [14]USA
California Csa
35MDissection of the aortic root, aortic stenosis, and
insufficiency
CompHeart Aortic resection and Daflon tube graft
insertion
6Santaeufemia
2014 [30]
Spain Madrid Csa0.16FCongenital hydrocephalusCompNeurologicalReducer cranioplasty and VP shunt
7Sawant 2013 [19]USA
California
Csa
62FChronic heart failure, chronic obstructive
pulmonary disease, chronic kidney disease
CompHeartBioprosthetic aortic valve replacement and placement of pace-maker
8Shigeta 1978 [31]Japan
Fukushima Cfa
9FArachnoid cystCompNeurologicalArachnoid cyst
and VP shunt
9Shigeta 1978 [31]Japan Fukushima Cfa8MThalamic tumorSuppNeurologicalVP shunt
10Tena 2014 [32]Spain Guadalajara Csa57FNo underlying diseaseCompOrthopedicTotal knee
arthroplasty
11Ahn 2004 [21]Korea Iksan Dfa35MChronic heart failureCompHeartPacemaker placement
12Padmaja 2013 [8]India
Hyderabad Aw
17MCongenital aortic stenosisCompHeartProsthetic aortic valve replacement
13Rafael 2014 [35]USA Ohio Dfa50FSplenomegaly,
pancytopenia, ventricular septal defect
SuppHeartVentricular septal defect repair
14Linde 1960 [44]USA
California Csa
20MTetralogy of FallotCompHeartDefinitive repair using Ivalon patch
15Tokuyasu 2012 [36]Japan
Tottori Cfa
86FChronic heart diseaseCompHeartProsthetic aortic valve replacement
16Taylor 1991 [37]USA
Missouri Dfa
53FRheumatoid arthritisSuppOrthopedicProsthetic knee
replacement
17Bhattarai 2016 [22]USA Illinois Dfa37FChronic heart disease, intravenous drug userCompHeartMitral valve
replacement
18Marion-
Sanchez 2018 [12]
Martinique Fort-de-France AM81MChronic heart diseaseCompHeartMitral valve
remplacement
19MarionSanchez 2019 [4]Martinique Fort-de-France AM58MDigestive ulcerCompThoracicEsophageal stent placement
20MarionSanchez 2019 [4]Martinique Fort-de-France AM41MBiliary stenosisCompDigestivePEG tube placement
21Lofgren 1981 [42]USA
Minneapolis Dfa
77FRheumatic aortic stenosisCompHeartProsthetic aortic valve replacement
22Tripathi 2020 [41]USA
Lexington Cfa
65MDistal common bile duct stone, chronic alcoholism, tonsillar adenocarcinomaSuppDigestivePEG tube placement
23McKinley 1989 [45]UK
Aylesbury Cfb
28MAortic valve regurgitationCompHeartAortic valve
replacement
24Lee 2014 [46]Korea Seoul Dwa52MOsteoarthritis CompOrthopedicTotal knee
arthroplasty
Subgroup 2—Surgical Procedures without Prosthesis or Implant
Case CharacteristicsSurgical Procedures
Case
no.
Author Year (Ref)Country State/City Climate *Age (Y)SexMain Disease and
Associated Pathologies
Immune StatusType of SurgeryDescription
25Ferroir 1988 [27]France Paris Cfb54FPneumocephalus, Hodgkin diseaseSuppThoracicLobectomy
26Holmes 1977 [29]UK London Cfb38FBreast Carcinoma, steroid, and hormonal therapy, chemo and radiotherapy. SuppGynecologicalMastectomy
27Ozer 2009 [16]Turkey Hatay Csa38MTraffic accident, central facial paralysisCompNeurologicalRemoval of arachnoid cyst by craniotomy
28Santaeufemia
2014 [30]
Spain Madrid Csa13MTrafic accident,
open fracture of the proximal left tibia and fibula
CompOrthopedicOsteosynthesis
29Shigeta 1978 [31]Japan,
Fukushima Cfa
49MMeningiomaSuppNeurologicalMeningioma resection by craniotomy
30Tena 2014 [32]Spain
Guadalajara Csa
47FMandibular abscessCompStomatologicalSubmandibular
abscess debridement
31Tena 2014 [32]Spain
Guadalajara Csa
18HPilonidal cystCompDigestiveCyst removal
32Tsay 2005 [20]Taïwan Changhua Cfa46MEmpyemaCompThoracicDecortication of
empyema
33D’Amato 1988 [33]USA New York Dfb14MTotally transected spinal cord after gunshot to the chestCompThoracicLigation of bleeding vessels and repair of lung laceration
34Asano 2005 [13]Japan
Kumamoto Cfa
52FCholecystolithiasisCompDigestiveCholecystectomy
35Asano 2005 [13]Japan
Kumamoto Cfa
57MCholecystolithiasisCompDigestiveCholecystectomy
36Asano 2005 [13]Japan
Kumamoto Cfa
52MCholecystolithiasisCompDigestiveCholecystectomy
37Vinod 2013 [7]India Kerala AM51MSimple renal cystCompNeurologicalLaparoscopic
deroofing of a simple renal cyst
38Teng 2009 [34]Taïwan Taipei Cfa27MCholecystolithiasisCompDigestiveCholecystectomy
39CPIAS 2003 [38]France Paris Cfb36MAchilles tendon ruptureCompOrthopedicAchilles tendon
40Rotter 2020 [39]USA
Minnesota Dfb
70MMucoceleCompNeurologicalResection of left frontal sinus and
zygomatico-maxillary mucocele
41Sari 2018 [40]Turkey Yozgat Dsb56MKidney stoneCompNephro-
logical
Intrarenal surgery for kidney stone
42MarionSanchez 2019 [4]Martinique Fort-de-France AM74MHistory of colorectal
Adenocarcinoma,
Peritonitis
SuppDigestiveExploratory
laparotomy
43MarionSanchez 2019 [4]Martinique Fort-de-France AM63FChronic heart diseaseCompHeart Double coronary
bypass
44MarionSanchez 2019 [4]Martinique Fort-de-France AM65FArteritisCompVascularFemorofemoral bypass
45Linde 1960 [44]USA
California Csa
4MDefect of interventricular septumCompHeart Direct closure
46Zhi Yang 2014 [43]Singapore Af46FExtensive thermal burns (41.5% of the total body)SuppReconstructiveBurn excision and staged, free and
cadaveric skin grafting
47Revati 2019 [47]India Kerala AM40FCholelithiasisCompDigestiveCholecystectomy
48Appelbaum
1980 [48]
USA
Pennsylvania Cfa
75MCholecystitisCompDigestiveLaparotomy
49Demirel 2015 [49]Turkey
Istanbul Csa
59FBladder tumorSuppUrologicalTransurethral
tumorectomy
* According to Köppen climate classification. Y: years; Comp: immunocompetent; Supp: immunosuppressed; M: male; F: female; VP: ventriculo-peritoneal.
Table 2. Infection topographies, treatments, and outcomes.
Table 2. Infection topographies, treatments, and outcomes.
Subgroup 1—Surgical Procedures Including Prosthesis or Implant
Infections TopographiesTreatments and Outcomes
Case no.Infection, DepthDelay (Days)Identified Species/Associated BacteriaSuspected Origin of InfectionTreatmentsOutcomes
1Endocarditis, deep120Ax subsp. denitrificans/
No
UknPiperacillin/Tazobactam, Imipenem/Cilastatin/
Levofloxacin
Recov
2Ventriculitis, deep30Ax/NoUknDoripenemRecov
3Abscess, deepUknAx/NoMeshCeftriaxone, LevofloxacinRecov
4Endocarditis deep180Ax/NoDuckpond water used to solubilize drugs for injectionMeropenemRecov
5Mediastinitis, deep180Ax/NoUknCarbenicillin/
Cotrimoxazole/Rifampin, Moxalactam/Rifampin, Azlocillin/Rifampin
Death
6Ventriculitis, deep20Ax/NoUknCeftazidime/MeropenemRecov
7Endocarditis, deep90Ax/NoExposing leg ulcers to water outdoorsPiperacillin/Tazobactam,
Meropenem/
Cotrimoxazole, Meropenem/Rifampin/Amikacin
Recov
8Ventriculitis, deep12Ax/NoAqueous Chlorhexidine solution diluted with non-sterile tap water.ChloramphenicolRecov
9Ventriculitis, deep30Ax/Serratia marcescensAqueous Chlorhexidine solution diluted with non-sterile tap water.ChloramphenicolRecov
10Wound infection, superficialUknAx/NoUknUknRecov
11Endocarditis, deep2920Ax/NoScaling and root planning at local dental clinicCeftazidime/PiperacillinRecov
12Endocarditis, deep150Ax subsp. denitrificans/NoUknMeropenem/ Levofloxacin, Meropenem/CotrimoxazoleRecov
13Intracardiac abscess, deep10,585Ax/NoUknPiperacillin/
Tazobactam/Cotrimoxazole
Recov
14Endocarditis, deep3Achromobacter spp./NoContamination of extracorporal heart pumpChloramphenicol/SulfonamidesDeath
15Endocarditis, deep1825Ax/NoUknMeropenemDeath
16Abscess, deepUknAx/NoUknCeftazidime, Imipenem/CotrimoxazoleRecov
17Endocarditis, deepUknAx/NoCocaïne mixed with stored tap waterMeropenemRecov
18Mediastinitis, deep20Ax/Staphylococcus aureusWater leaks in the ceiling in intensive care unitPiperacillin/Tazobactam, Meropenem/Vancomycin, CeftazidimeDeath
19Mediastinitis, deep10Achromobacter spp./NoUknMeropenem/VancomycinRecov
20Abscess, deep90Achromobacter spp/NoUknTazobactamRecov
21Endocarditis, deep120Ax/NoUknCotrimoxazole/MoxalactamDeath
22Peritonitis, deep16Achromobacter spp./NoUknPiperacillin/Tazobactam, Meropenem/VancomycinDeath
23Endocarditis, deep135Achromobacter Group B/NoUknCefuroxime/GentamycinRecov
24Prosthetic infection
deep
395Ax/NoUknCefazolin Ciprofloxacin ImipenemRecov
Subgroup 2—Surgical Procedures without Prosthesis or Implant
Infections TopographiesTreatments and Outcomes
Case
no.
Infection, DepthDelay (Days)Identified Species/Associated BacteriaSuspected Origin of InfectionTreatmentsOutcomes
25Meningitis, deep15Ax/NoAerosolMetronidazole/ImipenemRecov
26Wound infection, superficial270Ax/NoUknUknUkn
27Meningitis, deep3Ax/NoUknMeropenemRecov
28Wound infection, superficial11Ax/NoUknImipenem, VancomycinRecov
29Ventriculitis, deep6Ax/NoAqueous Chlorhexidine solution diluted with non-sterile tap water.UknRecov
30Cervical abscess, superficialUknAx/Candida albicansUknCiprofloxacinRecov
31Gluteal abscess, superficialUknAx/NoUknCotrimoxazoleRecov
32Wound infection, superficialUknAx/NoUknCefepimeRecov
33Meningitis, deep15Ax/NoGunshotCotrimoxazole/CeftazidimeRecov
34Liver abscess, deep150Ax/NoUknUknRecov
35Liver abscess, deep1140Ax/NoUknUknDeath
36Liver abscess, deep660Ax/NoUknUknDeath
37Perinephric abscess, deep730Ax/NoUknLevofloxacin/
Cotrimoxazole, Cefoperazone/Sulbactam, Levofloxacin/Cotrimoxazole
Recov
38Liver abscess, deep16Ax/Escherichia coliUknCefpirome, ColistinRecov
39Wound infection, superficial75Ax subsp. Denitrificans Escherichia coli, Morganella morganiiUknMyambutol/ Ciprofloxacin/ClarithromycinRecov
40Abscess, deep3650Ax/S.epidermidis, S. salivarius Mycobacterium aviumSpread via the auditory canalErtapenem, Cefriaxone/ Cotrimoxazole MeropenemRecov
41Urinary tract infection, deepUknAx/NoUknCiprofloxacin/
Ceftriaxone/Methenamine hippurate
Recov
42Abscess, deep14Achromobacter spp./Stenotrophomonas Maltophilia,
Candida albicans
UknTazobactam/AmikacinDeath
43Mediastinitis, deep 9Achromobacter spp./E coliUknTazobactam/Amikacin Cefotaxime/Amikacin, Cefotaxime/Fosfomycin Recov
44Wound infection, superficial53Achromobacter spp./NoUknNo antibiotic therapyRecov
45Endocarditis, deep2Achromobacter spp./NoContamination of the heart-lung machineChloramphenicol/ Streptomycin/SulfadiazineRecov
46Wound infection, superficial11Ax/Acinetobacter baumanniiUknPiperacillin/Tazobactam Polymixin BRecov
47Abscess deepUkn Achromobacter spp./NoEndogenous via biliary tractPiperacillin/TazobactamRecov
48Abscess deepUknAchromobacter Group Vd biovar 1/NoUknCefazolin GentamycinDeath
49Urosepsis deep30Ax/NoUknCefuroxime Meropenem CotrimoxazoleRecov
Ax: Achromobacter xylosoxidans.
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Ronin, E.; Derancourt, C.; Cabié, A.; Marion-Sanchez, K. Achromobacter spp. Surgical Site Infections: A Systematic Review of Case Reports and Case Series. Microorganisms 2021, 9, 2471. https://doi.org/10.3390/microorganisms9122471

AMA Style

Ronin E, Derancourt C, Cabié A, Marion-Sanchez K. Achromobacter spp. Surgical Site Infections: A Systematic Review of Case Reports and Case Series. Microorganisms. 2021; 9(12):2471. https://doi.org/10.3390/microorganisms9122471

Chicago/Turabian Style

Ronin, Eve, Christian Derancourt, André Cabié, and Karine Marion-Sanchez. 2021. "Achromobacter spp. Surgical Site Infections: A Systematic Review of Case Reports and Case Series" Microorganisms 9, no. 12: 2471. https://doi.org/10.3390/microorganisms9122471

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop