S A Maskarinec1, L P Park1, F Ruffin1, N A Turner1, N Patel2, E M Eichenberger1, D van Duin3, T Lodise4, V G Fowler5, J T Thaden1. 1. Division of Infectious Diseases and International Health, Duke University, Durham, NC, USA. 2. Division of Clinical Pharmacy, Skaggs School of Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical Sciences, University of California-San Diego, La Jolla, CA, USA. 3. Division of Infectious Diseases, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, USA. 4. Albany College of Pharmacy and Health Sciences, Albany, NY, USA. 5. Division of Infectious Diseases and International Health, Duke University, Durham, NC, USA. Electronic address: vance.fowler@duke.edu.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The role of follow-up blood cultures (FUBCs) in the management of Gram-negative bacteraemia (GNB) is poorly understood. We aimed to determine the utility of FUBCs in identifying patients with increased mortality risk. METHODS: An observational study with a prospectively enrolled cohort of adult inpatients with GNB was conducted at Duke University Health System from 2002 to 2015. FUBCs were defined as blood cultures performed from 24 hours to 7 days from initial positive blood culture. RESULTS: Among 1702 patients with GNB, 1164 (68%) had FUBCs performed. When performed, FUBCs were positive in 20% (228/1113) of cases. FUBC acquisition was associated with lower all-cause in-hospital mortality (108/538, 20%, vs. 176/1164, 15%; p 0.01) and attributable in-hospital mortality (78/538, 15%, vs. 98/1164, 8%; p < 0.0001). Propensity score-weighted Cox proportional hazards models revealed that obtaining FUBCs was associated with reductions in all-cause (hazard ratio (HR) 0.629; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.511-0.772; p < 0.0001) and attributable mortality (HR 0.628; 95% CI, 0.480-0.820; p 0.0007). Positive FUBCs were associated with increased all-cause mortality (49/228, 21%, vs. 110/885, 11%; p 0.0005) and attributable mortality (27/228, 12%, vs. 61/885, 7%; p 0.01) relative to negative FUBCs. Propensity score-weighted Cox proportional hazards models revealed that positive FUBCs were associated with increased all-cause (HR 2.099; 95% CI, 1.567-2.811; p < 0.0001) and attributable mortality (HR 1.800; 95% CI, 1.245-2.603; p 0.002). In a calibration analysis, a scoring system accurately identified patients at high risk of positive FUBCs. CONCLUSIONS: Rates of positive FUBCs were high and identified patients at increased risk for mortality. Clinical variables can identify patients at high risk for positive FUBCs. FUBCs should be considered in the management of GNB.
OBJECTIVES: The role of follow-up blood cultures (FUBCs) in the management of Gram-negative bacteraemia (GNB) is poorly understood. We aimed to determine the utility of FUBCs in identifying patients with increased mortality risk. METHODS: An observational study with a prospectively enrolled cohort of adult inpatients with GNB was conducted at Duke University Health System from 2002 to 2015. FUBCs were defined as blood cultures performed from 24 hours to 7 days from initial positive blood culture. RESULTS: Among 1702 patients with GNB, 1164 (68%) had FUBCs performed. When performed, FUBCs were positive in 20% (228/1113) of cases. FUBC acquisition was associated with lower all-cause in-hospital mortality (108/538, 20%, vs. 176/1164, 15%; p 0.01) and attributable in-hospital mortality (78/538, 15%, vs. 98/1164, 8%; p < 0.0001). Propensity score-weighted Cox proportional hazards models revealed that obtaining FUBCs was associated with reductions in all-cause (hazard ratio (HR) 0.629; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.511-0.772; p < 0.0001) and attributable mortality (HR 0.628; 95% CI, 0.480-0.820; p 0.0007). Positive FUBCs were associated with increased all-cause mortality (49/228, 21%, vs. 110/885, 11%; p 0.0005) and attributable mortality (27/228, 12%, vs. 61/885, 7%; p 0.01) relative to negative FUBCs. Propensity score-weighted Cox proportional hazards models revealed that positive FUBCs were associated with increased all-cause (HR 2.099; 95% CI, 1.567-2.811; p < 0.0001) and attributable mortality (HR 1.800; 95% CI, 1.245-2.603; p 0.002). In a calibration analysis, a scoring system accurately identified patients at high risk of positive FUBCs. CONCLUSIONS: Rates of positive FUBCs were high and identified patients at increased risk for mortality. Clinical variables can identify patients at high risk for positive FUBCs. FUBCs should be considered in the management of GNB.
Authors: Konstantinos Z Vardakas; Petros I Rafailidis; Athanasios A Konstantelias; Matthew E Falagas Journal: J Infect Date: 2012-11-06 Impact factor: 6.072
Authors: Sebastian J van Hal; Slade O Jensen; Vikram L Vaska; Björn A Espedido; David L Paterson; Iain B Gosbell Journal: Clin Microbiol Rev Date: 2012-04 Impact factor: 26.132
Authors: Vance G Fowler; Maren K Olsen; G Ralph Corey; Christopher W Woods; Christopher H Cabell; L Barth Reller; Allen C Cheng; Tara Dudley; Eugene Z Oddone Journal: Arch Intern Med Date: 2003-09-22
Authors: Marya D Zilberberg; Andrew F Shorr; Scott T Micek; Cristina Vazquez-Guillamet; Marin H Kollef Journal: Crit Care Date: 2014-11-21 Impact factor: 9.097
Authors: Patrick N A Harris; Anna M Peri; Anita M Pelecanos; Carly M Hughes; David L Paterson; John K Ferguson Journal: Antimicrob Resist Infect Control Date: 2017-01-21 Impact factor: 4.887
Authors: Christina N Canzoneri; Bobak J Akhavan; Zehra Tosur; Pedro E Alcedo Andrade; Gabriel M Aisenberg Journal: Clin Infect Dis Date: 2017-11-13 Impact factor: 9.079
Authors: Lauren Groft Buzzalino; James Mease; Ciera L Bernhardi; Jacqueline T Bork; J Kristie Johnson; Kimberly C Claeys Journal: Open Forum Infect Dis Date: 2022-04-15 Impact factor: 4.423
Authors: Emily M Eichenberger; Felicia Ruffin; Michael Dagher; Reginald Lerebours; Sin-Ho Jung; Batu Sharma-Kuinkel; Andrew N Macintyre; Joshua T Thaden; Matthew Sinclair; Lauren Hale; Celia Kohler; Scott M Palmer; Barbara D Alexander; Vance G Fowler; Stacey A Maskarinec Journal: Am J Transplant Date: 2020-11-20 Impact factor: 9.369
Authors: Jongtak Jung; Kyoung-Ho Song; Kang Il Jun; Chang Kyoung Kang; Nak-Hyun Kim; Pyoeng Gyun Choe; Wan Beom Park; Ji Hwan Bang; Eu Suk Kim; Sang-Won Park; Nam Joong Kim; Myoung-Don Oh; Hong Bin Kim Journal: BMC Infect Dis Date: 2020-09-17 Impact factor: 3.090
Authors: Rajiv Amipara; Hana Rac Winders; Julie Ann Justo; P Brandon Bookstaver; Joseph Kohn; Majdi N Al-Hasan Journal: EClinicalMedicine Date: 2021-03-30
Authors: Emily L Heil; Jacqueline T Bork; Lilian M Abbo; Tamar F Barlam; Sara E Cosgrove; Angelina Davis; David R Ha; Timothy C Jenkins; Keith S Kaye; James S Lewis; Jessica K Ortwine; Jason M Pogue; Emily S Spivak; Michael P Stevens; Liza Vaezi; Pranita D Tamma Journal: Open Forum Infect Dis Date: 2021-10-11 Impact factor: 3.835
Authors: Alexis L Green; Yuanyuan Liang; Lyndsay M O'Hara; Lisa Pineles; Scott Sorongon; Anthony D Harris; Jonathan D Baghdadi Journal: Antimicrob Steward Healthc Epidemiol Date: 2021-08-27
Authors: Katryn Paquette; David Sweet; Robert Stenstrom; Sarah N Stabler; Alexander Lawandi; Murtaza Akhter; Adam C Davidson; Marko Gavric; Rehman Jinah; Zahid Saeed; Koray Demir; Sassan Sangsari; Kelly Huang; Amirali Mahpour; Chris Shamatutu; Chelsea Caya; Jean-Marc Troquet; Greg Clark; Titus Wong; Cedric P Yansouni; Matthew P Cheng Journal: Open Forum Infect Dis Date: 2021-06-17 Impact factor: 3.835