Raheja Ronak, Reddy Neelesh, Patel Twinkle, Kilambi Srikar, Mathew Ashik A, Majeed Abdul
Department of Internal Medicine, Kempegowda Institute of Medical Sciences, Bengaluru, IND.
Department of Medical Oncology, Columbia Asia Referral Hospital Yeshwanthpur, Bangalore, IND.
Cureus. 2023 Aug 2;15(8):e42843. doi: 10.7759/cureus.42843. eCollection 2023 Aug.
Introduction Febrile neutropenia is a commonly encountered medical emergency in patients undergoing cancer treatment and can delay and modify the course of treatment and even lead to dire outcomes, including death. The cause of fever in a post-chemotherapy-induced neutropenic patient can be confusing to treating physicians. A review of the literature demonstrated that blood culture results could determine the cause of febrile neutropenia in only approximately 10% to 25% of patients. The objective of our study was to measure the incidence of positive blood cultures, urine cultures, and other body fluid cultures resulting in chemotherapy-induced neutropenia and further classify fever episodes into three neutropenic fever syndromes, such as microbiologically documented, clinically suspected, or unknown causes of fever, respectively. Methods We conducted a prospective observational study on 399 chemotherapy-induced neutropenic fever episodes with the aim of classifying them into one of the three neutropenic syndromes. We tried to document the cause of the fever in these patients. We also noted the type of cancer treatment regimen they were on and correlated their clinical profile with their body fluid cultures, including blood cultures, urine cultures, and other body fluid cultures. We then categorized each fever episode into one of three neutropenic syndromes. Results We studied 399 febrile neutropenic episodes. We were able to microbiologically document the cause of fever in 39% of the cases, and we obtained growth in 51 out of 399 blood cultures (13%), which was comparable to the available literature, and urine culture showed growth in 62 out of 399 cultures (16%), while other body cultures such as pus culture, bile culture, and bronchioalveolar lavage cultures collectively showed growth in 42 out of 399 episodes (10%). The most common bacteria isolated in both blood and urine cultures were . Cumulatively, including blood, urine, and body fluid cultures, we were able to classify 39% (155 out of 399 cases) of febrile neutropenic episodes as microbiologically documented. The cause of fever was clinically suspected by means of careful history taking and an extensive physical examination in 31% (125 out of 399) without growth evidence in blood cultures, urine cultures, or any other body fluid culture. The cause of fever remained unknown in 119 cases (30%) of patients and was classified under the unknown cause of fever. Conclusions We conclude by stating that the study of fever in a neutropenic patient should include a thorough history and clinical evaluation of blood, urine, and other body fluid cultures instead of solely relying on blood culture results. We recommend further classifying patients into one of the three neutropenic fever syndromes, such as those that are microbiologically documented, clinically suspected, or unknown. Our blood cultures were able to give us a 13% positivity rate, whereas microbiologically, we were able to isolate an organism likely causing fever in 39% of patients. The cause of fever was suspected clinically in 31% of patients, but we were unsuccessful in microbiologically documenting any culture growth in blood, urine, or any other body fluid culture. The cause of fever remained a mystery and unknown to us without any microbiological or clinical cues in 119 cases (30%) of febrile neutropenic episodes.
引言 发热性中性粒细胞减少是癌症治疗患者中常见的医疗急症,可延误和改变治疗进程,甚至导致严重后果,包括死亡。化疗后出现中性粒细胞减少的患者发热原因可能会让治疗医生感到困惑。文献综述表明,血培养结果仅能确定约10%至25%的发热性中性粒细胞减少患者的病因。我们研究的目的是测定导致化疗引起的中性粒细胞减少的血培养、尿培养及其他体液培养阳性的发生率,并将发热发作进一步分为三种中性粒细胞减少发热综合征,分别为微生物学确诊、临床怀疑或不明原因发热。
方法 我们对399例化疗引起的中性粒细胞减少发热发作进行了前瞻性观察研究,目的是将其分类为三种中性粒细胞减少综合征之一。我们试图记录这些患者的发热原因。我们还记录了他们所接受的癌症治疗方案类型,并将他们的临床特征与包括血培养、尿培养及其他体液培养在内的体液培养结果相关联。然后我们将每个发热发作分类为三种中性粒细胞减少综合征之一。
结果 我们研究了399例发热性中性粒细胞减少发作。我们能够在39%的病例中通过微生物学确定发热原因,399份血培养中有51份(13%)培养出细菌,这与现有文献相当,399份尿培养中有62份(16%)培养出细菌,而其他体液培养如脓液培养、胆汁培养和支气管肺泡灌洗培养在399次发作中共42份(10%)培养出细菌。血培养和尿培养中分离出的最常见细菌是……累计起来,包括血、尿和体液培养,我们能够将39%(399例中的155例)的发热性中性粒细胞减少发作分类为微生物学确诊。通过仔细询问病史和全面体格检查,在31%(399例中的125例)血培养、尿培养或任何其他体液培养无细菌生长证据的病例中临床怀疑发热原因。119例(30%)患者的发热原因仍不清楚,归类为不明原因发热。
结论 我们的结论是,对中性粒细胞减少患者发热的研究应包括对血、尿和其他体液培养进行全面的病史询问和临床评估,而不是仅依赖血培养结果。我们建议将患者进一步分类为三种中性粒细胞减少发热综合征之一,即微生物学确诊、临床怀疑或不明原因。我们的血培养阳性率为13%,而从微生物学角度,我们能够在39%的患者中分离出可能导致发热的病原体。31%的患者临床怀疑发热原因,但我们未能在血、尿或任何其他体液培养中通过微生物学记录到任何细菌生长。在119例(30%)发热性中性粒细胞减少发作中,发热原因在没有任何微生物学或临床线索的情况下仍然是个谜,我们对此并不清楚。