Skip to main content

Serratia Bacteraemia in the North Denmark Region: A Population-Based Study (2010-2024)

Journal
APMIS : acta pathologica, microbiologica, et immunologica Scandinavica (Q1)
Published
1 August 2026
Study design
Cohort / observational study
Evidence level
Level 3, Low (CEBM 3b)
Authors
Ida M Thiele, Kirstine K Søgaard, Jacob Bodilsen, Hans Linde Nielsen
PMID
42635016
DOI
10.1111/apm.70252

Why clinicians should know about it

  • Picked for Internal Medicine (paper of the day, 25 August 2026): Serratia bacteraemia population study

Abstract

Population-based data on Serratia bacteraemia are limited. We conducted a population-based cohort study of patients with a first-time episode of Serratia bacteraemia in the North Denmark Region between 1 January 2010 and 30 June 2024 (catchment population ~590,000). Clinical and microbiological data were obtained from medical records and the regional microbiological database. A total of 188 patients were identified. The median age was 70 years (IQR 60-78), 66% were male and 48% had a high Charlson Comorbidity Index score (≥ 3). The annual incidence remained stable at 2.1 per 100,000 person-years (95% CI 1.8-2.5). Bacteraemia was community-acquired in 38% of patients, healthcare-associated in 2% and hospital-acquired in 37%. The most common foci of infection were the urinary tract (25%), hepatobiliary tract (20%) and respiratory tract (14%), while a focus was not identified in 28% of patients. Thirty-day all-cause mortality was 24%. In an exploratory adjusted Poisson regression analysis, increasing age (RR 1.02, 95% CI 1.00-1.05) and high comorbidity (RR 2.58, 95% CI 1.01-6.63) were associated with increased mortality, whereas acquisition was not. Serratia bacteraemia predominantly affected older patients with substantial comorbidity and was associated with considerable mortality. Host-related factors appeared to be important determinants of outcome.

Abstract as published, via PubMed.

View on PubMedFull text at the publisherOpen in the app

For healthcare professionals. The summary is generated by AI from the published abstract, and the evidence level is assigned automatically from the study design on the Oxford CEBM hierarchy. Neither is medical advice. Read the full paper before changing practice.