Search

Bacteremia is associated with significant morbidity and mortality. Timely, appropriate therapy may improve clinical outcomes, and therefore, determining which patients benefit from more comprehensive diagnostic strategies (i.e., direct specimen testing) could be of value. We performed an assessment of procalcitonin (PCT) and clinical characteristics in the discrimination of bacteremic hospitalizations. We analyzed 71,105 encounters and 14,846 visits of patients with bacteremia alongside 56,259 without an admission. The area under the receiver—operating characteristic (AUROC) curve for the prediction of bacteremia via procalcitonin was 0.782 (95% CI 0.779–0.787). The prediction modeling of clinical factors with or without PCT resulted in a similar performance to PCT alone. However, the clinically predicted risk of bacteremia stratified by PCT thresholds allowed the targeting of high-incidence bacteremia groups (e.g., ≥50% positivity). The combined use of PCT and clinical characteristics could be useful in diagnostic stewardship by targeting further advanced diagnostic testing in patients with a high predicted probability of bacteremia. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Enterobacteriaceae bacteremia, particularly when associated with antimicrobial resistance, can result in increased mortality, emphasizing the need for timely effective therapy. Clinical risk prediction models are promising tools, stratifying patients based on their risk of resistance due to ESBL and carbapenemase-producing Enterobacteriaceae in bloodstream infections (BSIs) and, thereby, improving therapeutic decisions. This systematic review and meta-analysis synthesized the literature on the performance of these models. Searches of PubMed and EMBASE led to the identification of 10 relevant studies with 6106 unique patient encounters. Nine studies concerned ESBL prediction, and one focused on the prediction of carbapenemases. For the two ESBL model derivation studies, the discrimination performance showed sensitivities of 53–85% and specificities of 93–95%. Among the four ESBL model derivation and validation studies, the sensitivities were 43–88%, and the specificities were 77–99%. The sensitivity and specificity for the subsequent external validation studies were 7–37% and 88–96%, respectively. For the three external validation studies, only two models were evaluated across multiple studies, with a pooled AUROC of 65–71%, with one study omitting the sensitivity/specificity. Only two studies measured clinical utility through hypothetical therapy assessments. Given the limited evidence on their interventional application, it would be beneficial to further assess these or future models, to better understand their clinical utility and ensure their safe and impactful implementation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]