P-882. Comparison of Epidemiology, Risk factors, Antimicrobial susceptibility and Outcome of Anaerobic Bacteremia: 2011-2013 and 2020- 2022
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background Anaerobes are again entering the spotlight as patients become more complex and antimicrobial resistances continue to mount as a result of their widespread use. The aim of our study was to compare the incidence, risk factors and susceptibility patterns of anaerobic bacteremia during 1st Jan 2011-31st Dec 2013 (period 1) and 1st Jan 2020-31st Dec 2022 (period 2) in community hospitals and acute care centres in Edmonton and the North Zone in Alberta. The percentages of anaerobic organisms isolated in 2011-2013 and 2020-2022 Methods • Microbiologic data extracted from laboratory information system • Demographic and clinical data extracted from the EMR system • Blood cultures were incubated on the BD BACTEC 9240™ system or the BD BACTEC™ FX Blood Culture System • Organism identification was performed by Vitek® 2 ANC ID card, traditional phenotypic methods, Vitek® MALDI-TOF and, failing these, genomic sequencing • Susceptibility testing by E-test; interpretation as per CLSI or EUCAST guidelines The percentages of susceptible Bacteroides species to different antimicrobials in 2011-2013 and 2020-2022 Results Period 1: 319 anaerobic bacteremia were identified. 247 were included in the study after exclusion of repeat positives (within the first 2 weeks of the first positive culture) and contamination. Total number of isolates were 279 and susceptibilities were available on 252 during this period. Period 2: 830 anaerobic bacteremia were identified. 467 anaerobic bacteremia were included in the study after exclusion of repeat positives and contamination. The total number of isolates were 539 and susceptibilities were available on 417 isolates during this study period. The total number of anaerobic bacteremia almost doubled from 82 cases per year to 156 cases per year during the study decade. The majority were monomicrobial bacteremia (71% and 85%) with the gastrointestinal tract identified as the commonest source. The most common isolated anaerobe was Bacteroides species. Metronidazole susceptibilities for all anaerobes were above 90%. The crude 30-day mortality rates were 22.7% and 25.8% in period 1 and 2 respectively. Conclusion The total number of anaerobic bacteremia increased significantly in the 9-year interval. No significant changes in metronidazole susceptibility were observed between both periods of time. Disclosures All Authors: No reported disclosures
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".