Diagnostic and therapeutic yield of imaging studies in Polymicrobial and Monomicrobial Gram-negative bloodstream infections - a retrospective cohort study.

PURPOSE: Appropriate antimicrobial therapy and surgical drainage, improve survival in patients with Gram negative bloodstream infections (BSI). Data about the yield of imaging studies in polymicrobial BSI is sparse. The aim of the study was to assess the need for imaging studies and surgical drainage among patients with polymicrobial compared to monomicrobial BSI. RESULTS: In a retrospective cohort study of adult patients with Gram negative BSI, 135 patients with monomicrobial BSI were compared to 82 with polymicrobial BSI. Imaging studies were performed in 56.3 % of patients with monomicrobial BSI and in 50 % of polymicrobial BSI (p=0.4), surgical drainage was performed in 20.1 % of patients with monomicrobial BSI and 27.2 % of polymicrobial BSI (p=0.25). Surgical drainage was performed in 26.2 % of patients who survived vs. 11.8 % of patients who died (p=0.035). CONCLUSIONS: There is no difference in the diagnostic approach to monomicrobial and polymicrobial Gram-negative BSI. Surgical drainage is associated with decreased mortality.

An emergency department intervention to improve earlier detection of community-onset bloodstream infection among hospitalized patients.

BACKGROUND: Blood cultures (BCs) are essential microbiologic tests, but blood culturing diagnostic stewardship is frequently poor. We aimed to study the process-related failures and to evaluate the effect of an emergency department (ED) intervention on BCs collection practices and yield. METHODS: We implemented an ED-quality improvement intervention including educational sessions, phlebotomists addition, promoting single-site strategy for BC-collection and preanalytical data feedback. BC-bottles collected, positive BCs, blood volumes and documentation of collection times were measured, before (December 2021-August 2022) and after (September 2022-July 2023) intervention. Results were corrected to hospitalizations admissions or days. We used interrupted-time series analyses for comparisons. RESULTS: A total of 64,295 BC bottles were evaluated, 26,261 before and 38,034 postintervention. The median ED-BCs collected per week increased from 88 to 105 BCs (P < .0001), resulting from increased early sampling (P = .0001). Solitary BCs decreased (95%-28%), documented times increased (2.8%-25%), and average blood volume increased (3 mL to 4.5 mL) postintervention. Community-onset Bloodstream infections (BSIs) increased (39.6-52 bottles/1,000 admissions, P = .0001), while Health care-associated BSIs decreased (39-27 bottles/10,000 days, P = .0042). Contamination rates did not change. CONCLUSIONS: An ED-focused intervention based on the education sessions and single-site strategy improved culturing stewardship and facilitated the early identification of BSI without an increase in contamination.

An international multicenter study comparing COVID-19 omicron outcomes in patients with hematological malignancies treated with obinutuzumab versus rituximab.

OBJECTIVES: Hematological malignancy (HM) patients treated with anti-CD20 monoclonal antibodies are at higher risk for severe COVID-19. A previous single-center study showed worse outcomes in patients treated with obinutuzumab compared to rituximab. We examined this hypothesis in a large international multicenter cohort. METHODS: We included HM patients from 15 centers, from five countries treated with anti-CD20, comparing those treated with obinutuzumab (O-G) to rituximab (R-G) between December 2021 and June 2022, when Omicron lineage was dominant. RESULTS: We collected data on 1048 patients. Within the R-G (n = 762, 73%), 191 (25%) contracted COVID-19 compared to 103 (36%) in the O-G. COVID-19 patients in the O-G were younger (61 ± 11.7 vs. 64 ± 14.5, p = 0.039), had more indolent HM diagnosis (aggressive lymphoma: 3.9% vs. 67.0%, p < 0.001), and most were on maintenance therapy at COVID-19 diagnosis (63.0% vs. 16.8%, p < 0.001). Severe-critical COVID-19 occurred in 31.1% of patients in the O-G and 22.5% in the R-G. In multivariable analysis, O-G had a 2.08-fold increased risk for severe-critical COVID-19 compared to R-G (95% CI 1.13-3.84), adjusted for Charlson comorbidity index, sex, and tixagevimab/cilgavimab (T-C) prophylaxis. Further analysis comparing O-G to R-G demonstrated increased hospitalizations (51.5% vs. 35.6% p = 0.008), ICU admissions (12.6% vs. 5.8%, p = 0.042), but the nonsignificant difference in COVID-19-related mortality (n = 10, 9.7% vs. n = 12, 6.3%, p = 0.293). CONCLUSIONS: Despite younger age and a more indolent HM diagnosis, patients receiving obinutuzumab had more severe COVID-19 outcomes than those receiving rituximab. Our findings underscore the need to evaluate the risk-benefit balance when considering obinutuzumab therapy for HM patients during respiratory viral outbreaks.