Derivation and External Validation of the Ottawa Bloodstream Infection Model for Acutely Ill Adults.

BACKGROUND: Knowing the probability that patients have a bloodstream infection (BSI) could influence the ordering of blood cultures and interpretation of their preliminary results. Many previous BSI probability models have limited applicability and accuracy. This study used currently recommended modeling techniques and a large sample to derive and validate the Ottawa BSI Model. METHODS: At a tertiary care teaching hospital, we retrieved a random sample of 4180 adults having blood cultures in our emergency department or during the initial 48 h of the encounter. Variable selection was based on clinical experience and a systematic review of previous model performance. Model performance was measured in a temporal external validation group of 4680 patients. RESULTS: A total of 327 derivation patients had a BSI (8.0%). BSI risk increased with increased number of culture sets (2 sets: adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 1.52 [1.10-2.11]; 3 sets: 1.99 [0.86-4.58]); with indwelling catheter (aOR 2.07 [1.34-3.20); with increasing temperature, heart rate, and neutrophil-lymphocyte ratio; and with decreasing systolic blood pressure, platelet count, urea-creatinine ratio, and estimated glomerular filtration rate. In the temporal external validation group, model discrimination was good (c-statistic 0.71 [0.69-0.74]) and calibration was very good (integrated calibration index .016 [.010-.024]). Exclusion of validation patients with acute SARS-CoV-2 infection improved discrimination slightly (c-statistic 0.73 [0.69-0.76]). CONCLUSIONS: The Ottawa BSI Model uses commonly available data to return an expected BSI probability for acutely ill patients. However, it cannot exclude BSI and its complexity requires computational assistance to use.

Concurrent external validation of bloodstream infection probability models.

OBJECTIVE: Accurately estimating the likelihood of bloodstream infection (BSI) can help clinicians make diagnostic and therapeutic decisions. Many multivariate models predicting BSI probability have been published. This study measured the performance of BSI probability models within the same patient sample. METHODS: We retrieved validated BSI probability models included in a recently published systematic review that returned a patient-level BSI probability for adults. Model applicability, discrimination, and accuracy was measured in a simple random sample of 4485 admitted adults having blood cultures ordered in the emergency department or the initial 48 hours of hospitalization. RESULTS: Ten models were included (publication years 1991-2015). Common methodological threats to model performance included overfitting and continuous variable categorization. Restrictive inclusion criteria caused seven models to apply to <15% of validation patients. Model discrimination was less than originally reported in derivation groups (median c-statistic 60%, range 48-69). The observed BSI risk frequently deviated from expected (median integrated calibration index 4.0%, range 0.8-12.4). Notable disagreement in expected BSI probabilities was seen between models (median (25th-75th percentile) relative difference between expected risks 68.0% (28.6-113.6%)). DISCUSSION: In a large randomly selected external validation population, many published BSI probability models had restricted applicability, limited discrimination and calibration, and extensive inter-model disagreement. Direct comparison of model performance is hampered by dissimilarities between model-specific validation groups.