A new review pulled together 21 studies to understand what happens to patients who get infected with carbapenem-resistant Enterobacterales, or CRE. These are gut bacteria that have become resistant to many common antibiotics, making them harder to treat.
The review found that CRE infections were linked to higher hospital costs, longer hospital stays, and higher death rates compared with similar infections that were not resistant to carbapenems. Length of stay was about 14 days longer on average. The risk of death was nearly twice as high.
This was a meta-analysis, which means it combined results from many smaller studies. It shows a link, not proof that CRE directly causes these outcomes. The cost findings came from a narrative summary rather than a pooled analysis, so they are less precise. The review did not report safety data, funding sources, or conflicts of interest.
What this means for readers: CRE infections are a serious concern in hospitals, and this review highlights their human and financial toll. If you or a loved one are hospitalized and concerned about infections, talk with your care team about prevention and treatment options.
Common questions
What is a CRE infection?
CRE stands for carbapenem-resistant Enterobacterales. These are bacteria that normally live in the gut but have become resistant to carbapenem antibiotics, which are often used as a last resort. This makes CRE infections harder to treat. The review looked at patients with these infections and compared them with patients who had similar but non-resistant infections.
How much longer do patients with CRE stay in the hospital?
The review found that patients with CRE infections stayed in the hospital about 14 days longer on average than patients with carbapenem-susceptible Enterobacterales infections. The 95% confidence interval was 11.43 to 16.88 days. This means the true average increase is likely somewhere in that range.
Does CRE infection increase the risk of death?
Yes, the review found a higher risk of death in patients with CRE infections compared with those with carbapenem-susceptible infections. The risk was nearly twice as high, with an effect size of 1.96 and a 95% confidence interval of 1.63 to 2.36. This is an association, not proof of cause and effect.
Is this finding based on strong evidence?
This is a meta-analysis of 21 studies, which combines results from multiple studies. However, the cost findings were based on a narrative summary rather than a pooled analysis, so they are less precise. The review did not report safety data, funding, or conflicts of interest. It shows a link, but more research is needed to confirm these findings.
