Sameer S Kadri1, Yi Ling Lai2, Sarah Warner3, Jeffrey R Strich4, Ahmed Babiker5, Emily E Ricotta2, Cumhur Y Demirkale3, John P Dekker6, Tara N Palmore7, Chanu Rhee8, Michael Klompas8, David C Hooper9, John H Powers10, Arjun Srinivasan11, Robert L Danner3, Jennifer Adjemian12. 1. Critical Care Medicine Department, National Institutes of Health Clinical Center, Bethesda, MD, USA; Department of Medicine, Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences, Bethesda, MD, USA. Electronic address: sameer.kadri@nih.gov. 2. Epidemiology Unit, Division of Intramural Research, National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, USA. 3. Critical Care Medicine Department, National Institutes of Health Clinical Center, Bethesda, MD, USA. 4. Critical Care Medicine Department, National Institutes of Health Clinical Center, Bethesda, MD, USA; United States Public Health Service, Commissioned Corps, Rockville, MD, USA. 5. Department of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, GA, USA. 6. Laboratory of Clinical Immunology and Microbiology, National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, USA. 7. Hospital Epidemiology Service, National Institutes of Health Clinical Center, Bethesda, MD, USA. 8. Brigham and Women's Hospitals, Boston, MA, USA; Department of Population Medicine, Harvard Medical School and Harvard Pilgrim Health Care Institute, Boston, MA, USA. 9. Division of Infectious Diseases, Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA. 10. Clinical Research Directorate, Frederick National Laboratory for Cancer Research, Frederick, MD, USA. 11. Division of Healthcare Quality Promotion, National Center for Emerging and Zoonotic Infectious Diseases, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, GA, USA. 12. Epidemiology Unit, Division of Intramural Research, National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, USA; United States Public Health Service, Commissioned Corps, Rockville, MD, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The prevalence and effects of inappropriate empirical antibiotic therapy for bloodstream infections are unclear. We aimed to establish the population-level burden, predictors, and mortality risk of in-vitro susceptibility-discordant empirical antibiotic therapy among patients with bloodstream infections. METHODS: Our retrospective cohort analysis of electronic health record data from 131 hospitals in the USA included patients with suspected-and subsequently confirmed-bloodstream infections who were treated empirically with systemic antibiotics between Jan 1, 2005, and Dec 31, 2014. We included all patients with monomicrobial bacteraemia caused by common bloodstream pathogens who received at least one systemic antibiotic either on the day blood cultures were drawn or the day after, and for whom susceptibility data were available. We calculated the prevalence of discordant empirical antibiotic therapy-which was defined as receiving antibiotics on the day blood culture samples were drawn to which the cultured isolate was not susceptible in vitro-overall and by hospital type by using regression tree analysis. We used generalised estimating equations to identify predictors of receiving discordant empirical antibiotic therapy, and used logistic regression to calculate adjusted odds ratios for the relationship between in-hospital mortality and discordant empirical antibiotic therapy. FINDINGS: 21 608 patients with bloodstream infections received empirical antibiotic therapy on the day of first blood culture collection. Of these patients, 4165 (19%) received discordant empirical antibiotic therapy. Discordant empirical antibiotic therapy was independently associated with increased risk of mortality (adjusted odds ratio 1·46 [95% CI, 1·28-1·66]; p<0·0001), a relationship that was unaffected by the presence or absence of resistance or sepsis or septic shock. Infection with antibiotic-resistant species strongly predicted receiving discordant empirical therapy (adjusted odds ratio 9·09 [95% CI 7·68-10·76]; p<0·0001). Most incidences of discordant empirical antibiotic therapy and associated deaths occurred among patients with bloodstream infections caused by Staphylococcus aureus or Enterobacterales. INTERPRETATION: Approximately one in five patients with bloodstream infections in US hospitals received discordant empirical antibiotic therapy, receipt of which was closely associated with infection with antibiotic-resistant pathogens. Receiving discordant empirical antibiotic therapy was associated with increased odds of mortality overall, even in patients without sepsis. Early identification of bloodstream pathogens and resistance will probably improve population-level outcomes. FUNDING: US National Institutes of Health, US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and US Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality.
BACKGROUND: The prevalence and effects of inappropriate empirical antibiotic therapy for bloodstream infections are unclear. We aimed to establish the population-level burden, predictors, and mortality risk of in-vitro susceptibility-discordant empirical antibiotic therapy among patients with bloodstream infections. METHODS: Our retrospective cohort analysis of electronic health record data from 131 hospitals in the USA included patients with suspected-and subsequently confirmed-bloodstream infections who were treated empirically with systemic antibiotics between Jan 1, 2005, and Dec 31, 2014. We included all patients with monomicrobial bacteraemia caused by common bloodstream pathogens who received at least one systemic antibiotic either on the day blood cultures were drawn or the day after, and for whom susceptibility data were available. We calculated the prevalence of discordant empirical antibiotic therapy-which was defined as receiving antibiotics on the day blood culture samples were drawn to which the cultured isolate was not susceptible in vitro-overall and by hospital type by using regression tree analysis. We used generalised estimating equations to identify predictors of receiving discordant empirical antibiotic therapy, and used logistic regression to calculate adjusted odds ratios for the relationship between in-hospital mortality and discordant empirical antibiotic therapy. FINDINGS: 21 608 patients with bloodstream infections received empirical antibiotic therapy on the day of first blood culture collection. Of these patients, 4165 (19%) received discordant empirical antibiotic therapy. Discordant empirical antibiotic therapy was independently associated with increased risk of mortality (adjusted odds ratio 1·46 [95% CI, 1·28-1·66]; p<0·0001), a relationship that was unaffected by the presence or absence of resistance or sepsis or septic shock. Infection with antibiotic-resistant species strongly predicted receiving discordant empirical therapy (adjusted odds ratio 9·09 [95% CI 7·68-10·76]; p<0·0001). Most incidences of discordant empirical antibiotic therapy and associated deaths occurred among patients with bloodstream infections caused by Staphylococcus aureus or Enterobacterales. INTERPRETATION: Approximately one in five patients with bloodstream infections in US hospitals received discordant empirical antibiotic therapy, receipt of which was closely associated with infection with antibiotic-resistant pathogens. Receiving discordant empirical antibiotic therapy was associated with increased odds of mortality overall, even in patients without sepsis. Early identification of bloodstream pathogens and resistance will probably improve population-level outcomes. FUNDING: US National Institutes of Health, US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and US Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality.
Authors: Mervyn Singer; Clifford S Deutschman; Christopher Warren Seymour; Manu Shankar-Hari; Djillali Annane; Michael Bauer; Rinaldo Bellomo; Gordon R Bernard; Jean-Daniel Chiche; Craig M Coopersmith; Richard S Hotchkiss; Mitchell M Levy; John C Marshall; Greg S Martin; Steven M Opal; Gordon D Rubenfeld; Tom van der Poll; Jean-Louis Vincent; Derek C Angus Journal: JAMA Date: 2016-02-23 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Sameer S Kadri; Yi Ling Elaine Lai; Emily E Ricotta; Jeffrey R Strich; Ahmed Babiker; Chanu Rhee; Michael Klompas; John P Dekker; John H Powers; Robert L Danner; Jennifer Adjemian Journal: Open Forum Infect Dis Date: 2019-02-28 Impact factor: 3.835
Authors: Tristan T Timbrook; Jacob B Morton; Kevin W McConeghy; Aisling R Caffrey; Eleftherios Mylonakis; Kerry L LaPlante Journal: Clin Infect Dis Date: 2016-09-26 Impact factor: 9.079
Authors: Jenna Wiens; Graham M Snyder; Samuel Finlayson; Monica V Mahoney; Leo Anthony Celi Journal: Open Forum Infect Dis Date: 2017-12-19 Impact factor: 3.835
Authors: Federico Perez; Roberto Viau Colindres; Brigid M Wilson; Elie Saade; Robin L P Jump; Ritu Banerjee; Robin Patel; Scott R Evans; Robert A Bonomo Journal: Clin Infect Dis Date: 2021-10-05 Impact factor: 9.079
Authors: Ekadashi Rajni; Vishnu K Garg; Daisy Bacchani; Richa Sharma; Rajat Vohra; Vedprakash Mamoria; Hemant Malhotra Journal: Indian J Crit Care Med Date: 2021-04