Skip to content
naulon

No retraction, correction or concern found when last checked on Oct 17, 2026.

Gastrointestinal Carriage Is a Major Reservoir of Klebsiella pneumoniae Infection in Intensive Care Patients

Claire L. Gorrie, Mirjana Mirčeta, Ryan R. Wick and 11 more

Clinical Infectious Diseases · 2017 · CC BY

doi:10.1101/096446

Abstract

Background.. Klebsiella pneumoniae is an opportunistic pathogen and leading cause of hospital-associated infections. Intensive care unit (ICU) patients are particularly at risk. Klebsiella pneumoniae is part of the healthy human microbiome, providing a potential reservoir for infection. However, the frequency of gut colonization and its contribution to infections are not well characterized.

Methods.. We conducted a 1-year prospective cohort study in which 498 ICU patients were screened for rectal and throat carriage of K. pneumoniae shortly after admission. Klebsiella pneumoniae isolated from screening swabs and clinical diagnostic samples were characterized using whole genome sequencing and combined with epidemiological data to identify likely transmission events.

Results.. Klebsiella pneumoniae carriage frequencies were estimated at 6% (95% confidence interval [CI], 3%–8%) among ICU patients admitted direct from the community, and 19% (95% CI, 14%–51%) among those with recent healthcare contact. Gut colonization on admission was significantly associated with subsequent infection (infection risk 16% vs 3%, odds ratio [OR] = 6.9, P <.001), and genome data indicated matching carriage and infection isolates in 80% of isolate pairs. Five likely transmission chains were identified, responsible for 12% of K. pneumoniae infections in ICU. In sum, 49% of K. pneumoniae infections were caused by the patients’ own unique strain, and 48% of screened patients with infections were positive for prior colonization.

Conclusions.. These data confirm K. pneumoniae colonization is a significant risk factor for infection in ICU, and indicate ~50% of K. pneumoniae infections result from patients’ own microbiota. Screening for colonization on admission could limit risk of infection in the colonized patient and others.

References 35

  1. 1.

    This reference’s wording can’t be shown under the paper’s licence.

    Not in our library

  2. 2.

    This reference’s wording can’t be shown under the paper’s licence.

    Not in our library

  3. 3.

    This reference’s wording can’t be shown under the paper’s licence.

    Not in our library

  4. 4.

    This reference’s wording can’t be shown under the paper’s licence.

    Not in our library

  5. 5.

    This reference’s wording can’t be shown under the paper’s licence.

    Not in our library

  6. 6.

    This reference’s wording can’t be shown under the paper’s licence.

    Not in our library

  7. 7.

    This reference’s wording can’t be shown under the paper’s licence.

    Not in our library

  8. 8.

    This reference’s wording can’t be shown under the paper’s licence.

    Not in our library

  9. 9.
  10. 10.

    This reference’s wording can’t be shown under the paper’s licence.

    Not in our library

  11. 11.

    This reference’s wording can’t be shown under the paper’s licence.

    Not in our library

  12. 12.

    This reference’s wording can’t be shown under the paper’s licence.

    Not in our library

  13. 13.

    This reference’s wording can’t be shown under the paper’s licence.

    Not in our library

  14. 14.

    This reference’s wording can’t be shown under the paper’s licence.

    Not in our library

  15. 15.

    This reference’s wording can’t be shown under the paper’s licence.

    Not in our library

  16. 16.
  17. 17.

    This reference’s wording can’t be shown under the paper’s licence.

    Not in our library

  18. 18.

    This reference’s wording can’t be shown under the paper’s licence.

    Not in our library

  19. 19.

    This reference’s wording can’t be shown under the paper’s licence.

    Not in our library

  20. 20.

    This reference’s wording can’t be shown under the paper’s licence.

    Not in our library

  21. 21.

    This reference’s wording can’t be shown under the paper’s licence.

    Not in our library

  22. 22.

    This reference’s wording can’t be shown under the paper’s licence.

    Not in our library

  23. 23.

    This reference’s wording can’t be shown under the paper’s licence.

    Not in our library

  24. 24.

    This reference’s wording can’t be shown under the paper’s licence.

    Not in our library

  25. 25.

    This reference’s wording can’t be shown under the paper’s licence.

    Not in our library

  26. 26.

    This reference’s wording can’t be shown under the paper’s licence.

    Not in our library

  27. 27.

    This reference’s wording can’t be shown under the paper’s licence.

    Not in our library

  28. 28.

    This reference’s wording can’t be shown under the paper’s licence.

    Not in our library

  29. 29.

    This reference’s wording can’t be shown under the paper’s licence.

    Not in our library

  30. 30.

    This reference’s wording can’t be shown under the paper’s licence.

    Not in our library

  31. 31.

    This reference’s wording can’t be shown under the paper’s licence.

    Not in our library

  32. 32.

    This reference’s wording can’t be shown under the paper’s licence.

    Not in our library

  33. 33.

    This reference’s wording can’t be shown under the paper’s licence.

    Not in our library

  34. 34.
  35. 35.

Cited by papers we hold 20

Reads

Read by people on this page

None yet.

Checked or read by AI through naulon

None yet.

A person counts once a day per paper. We keep no cookie and no address: a reader is a hash that changes every day. Any month under five reads shows no number.

Are you an author?

Is this your paper?

Claim it to add your note and be paid when agents cite it. Free.