Population-based assessment of intensive care unit-acquired bloodstream infections in adults: Incidence, risk factors, and associated mortality rate
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Nosocomial bloodstream infections have been extensively investigated, but relatively few studies have specifically evaluated the epidemiology of intensive care unit-acquired bloodstream infections. The study objective was to define the incidence, risk factors, microbiology, and clinical outcomes of intensive care unit-acquired bloodstream infections. DESIGN: Population-based prospective cohort. SETTING: Multidisciplinary intensive care units. PATIENTS: All Calgary Health Region (population 930,000) adult patients admitted to multidisciplinary intensive care units (>/=48 hrs) from May 1, 1999, to April 30, 2000. INTERVENTIONS: Blood sample analysis. MEASUREMENTS AND RESULTS: There were 1,158 admission episodes in 1,017 patients; 37% involved females, and mean +/- sd age and Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II scores were 59.6 +/- 18.7 yrs and 23.4 +/- 7.7, respectively. Fifty-one patients developed intensive care unit-acquired bloodstream infections (first positive blood culture >/=48 hrs after intensive care unit admission) for an incidence of 4.4% and an incidence density of 5.2 per 1000 intensive care unit days. Younger age (adjusted odds ratio, 0.98; 95% confidence interval, 0.96-1.00, p =.01), longer intensive care unit length of stay (adjusted odds ratio, 4.74; 95% CI, 3.26-6.90, p <.001), and lower hematocrit (adjusted odds ratio, 0.95; 95% confidence interval, 0.90-1.00, p =.04) were significant independent predictors of intensive care unit-acquired bloodstream infections, and these infections were associated with an increased intensive care unit length of stay of 2.86 days (95% confidence interval, 2.29-3.57, p <.001). Staphylococcus aureus (27%), coagulase-negative staphylococci (14%), and Enterococcus faecium (12%) were most commonly isolated. Four (8%) bloodstream infections involved antibiotic-resistant organisms, and ten (20%) were polymicrobial. In multivariate analysis, intensive care unit-acquired bloodstream infection was associated with an increased intensive care unit mortality rate (adjusted odds ratio, 2.03; 95% confidence interval, 1.03-4.00, p = 0.04) but not overall hospital mortality rate. CONCLUSIONS: One patient in 20 admitted to Calgary Health Region intensive care units acquires bloodstream infection and suffers longer intensive care unit stay and increased mortality rates. In our region, multiple antibiotic-resistant organisms are uncommon causes of bloodstream infections, suggesting that it may be safe to use narrower spectrum empirical treatment regimens than current guidelines recommend.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".