Bacterial Meningitis in Adults After Splenectomy and Hyposplenic States
Department of Neurology, Academic Medical Center, Center of Infection and Immunity Amsterdam, the Netherlands. Mayo Clinic Proceedings
(Impact Factor: 6.26).
04/2013; 88(6). DOI: 10.1016/j.mayocp.2013.02.009
To examine the occurrence, disease course, prognosis, and vaccination status of patients with community-acquired bacterial meningitis with a history of splenectomy or functional hyposplenia.
Patients and methods:
Patients with bacterial meningitis proven by cerebrospinal fluid culture were prospectively included in a nationwide cohort study between March 1, 2006, and September 1, 2011. Splenectomy or diseases associated with functional hyposplenia were scored for all patients. Vaccination status, clinical features, and outcome of patients with a history of splenectomy or functional hyposplenia were analyzed and compared with patients with normal spleen function.
Twenty-four of 965 patients (2.5%) had an abnormal splenic function: 16 had a history of splenectomy and 8 had functional hyposplenia. All patients had pneumococcal meningitis. Pre-illness vaccination status could be retrieved for 19 of 21 patients (90%), and only 6 patients (32%) were adequately vaccinated against pneumococci. Pneumococcal serotype was known in 21 patients; 52% of pneumococcal isolates had a serotype included in the 23-valent vaccine. Vaccine failure occurred in 3 patients. Splenectomized patients more often presented with signs of septic shock compared with patients with a normal spleen (63% vs 24%; P=.02). Outcome was unfavorable in 14 patients (58%), and 6 patients died (25%).
Splenectomy or functional hyposplenia is an uncommon risk factor for bacterial meningitis but results in a high rate of mortality and unfavorable outcome. Most patients were not adequately vaccinated against Streptococcus pneumoniae.
Available from: Alejandro Rodriguez
Revista espanola de quimioterapia: publicacion oficial de la Sociedad Espanola de Quimioterapia 09/2013; 26(3):232-252. · 0.80 Impact Factor
Available from: Nathan C Bahr
[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Infectious meningitis may be due to bacterial, mycobacterial, fungal or viral agents. Diagnosis of meningitis must take into account numerous items of patient history and symptomatology along with regional epidemiology and basic cerebrospinal fluid testing (protein, etc.) to allow the clinician to stratify the likelihood of etiology possibilities and rationally select additional diagnostic tests. Culture is the mainstay for diagnosis in many cases, but technology is evolving to provide more rapid, reliable diagnosis. The cryptococcal antigen lateral flow assay (Immuno-Mycologics) has revolutionized diagnosis of cryptococcosis and automated nucleic acid amplification assays hold promise for improving diagnosis of bacterial and mycobacterial meningitis. This review will focus on a holistic approach to diagnosis of meningitis as well as recent technological advances.
Biomarkers in Medicine 10/2014; 8(9):1085-103. DOI:10.2217/bmm.14.67 · 2.65 Impact Factor
Available from: Matthijs C Brouwer
[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Bacterial meningitis is a life-threatening infectious disease with high mortality and disability rates, despite availability of antibiotics and adjunctive therapy with dexamethasone. Several risk factors and predisposing conditions have been identified that increase susceptibility for bacterial meningitis. Such risk factors can consist of medical conditions resulting in immunodeficiency, host genetic factors or anatomical defects of the natural barriers of the central nervous system. These factors can increase the risk of meningitis in general or result in a specific risk of meningococcal or pneumococcal meningitis, the two most important causes of bacterial meningitis, which are characterised by distinct host-pathogen interactions. In this review we describe several risk factors for communityacquired bacterial meningitis in adults and discuss what preventive measurements can be taken in these populations.
The Netherlands Journal of Medicine 02/2015; 73(2):53-60. · 1.97 Impact Factor
Data provided are for informational purposes only. Although carefully collected, accuracy cannot be guaranteed. The impact factor represents a rough estimation of the journal's impact factor and does not reflect the actual current impact factor. Publisher conditions are provided by RoMEO. Differing provisions from the publisher's actual policy or licence agreement may be applicable.