Howard‐Anderson, Jessica

ABSTRACT Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute (CLSI) recommends a blood culture contamination (BCC) threshold of <3%, with ≤1% considered optimal. However, there is not a standardized definition of BCC, and the effect of multiple definitions on BCC rates or what definitions laboratories use remain unknown. We surveyed 52 hospitals and analyzed 362,078 blood cultures (BCx) collected 1 September 2019 to 31 August 2021 from 62 intensive care units (ICUs) and 231 wards from 48 of these hospitals. We calculated and compared BCC rates using the College of American Pathologists (CAP) or CLSI criteria (both utilize a limited number of skin commensals to define BCC) and the comprehensive National Healthcare Safety Network (NHSN) commensal list. We characterized factors associated with BCC and related outcomes (central-line associated bloodstream infection [CLABSI] and vancomycin use). BCC, BCx positivity, and single BCx rates were monitored by 100%, 39%, and 21% of hospitals, respectively. Hospitals used CAP (65%), CLSI (17%), and NHSN (17%) criteria to define BCC. Mean BCC rate by CAP (CAP-BCC) was 1.38% for ICUs and 0.96% for wards. BCC rates remained similar by CLSI criteria but increased when using NHSN list. Sharing BCC data outside of the laboratory, measuring additional BCx quality indicators, and limiting central catheter-drawn BCx were associated with lower BCC rates. BCC was associated with higher CLABSI rates in ICUs. This study demonstrated variability in laboratory practices and opportunities to optimize BCx stewardship. IMPORTANCE Blood culture contamination (BCC) is associated with patient harm and unnecessary use of healthcare resources. BCC thresholds have been established; however, multiple BCC definitions exist. There is limited data on how BCC rates differ depending on the BCC definition used, what definitions laboratories most commonly use, or their approach to other blood cultures (BCx) quality indicators such as single rates or BCx positivity. A cross-sectional multicenter survey and analysis of BCx data from intensive care unit and wards revealed that most laboratories did not track single BCx or BCx positivity rates and that there was variability in how BCC was defined. Additionally, BCC rates were influenced by the definition used. BCC was associated with increased central-line associated bloodstream infection rates.

ImportanceBlood culture (BC) use benchmarks in US hospitals have not been defined.ObjectiveTo characterize BC use in adult intensive care units (ICUs) and wards in US hospitals.Design, Setting, and ParticipantsA retrospective cross-sectional study of BC use in adult medical ICUs, medical-surgical ICUs, medical wards, and medical-surgical wards from acute care hospitals from the 4 US geographic regions was conducted. Critical access hospitals, less than 6 months of BC data, and non-US hospitals were excluded. The study included BC use data from September 1, 2019, to August 31, 2021. Data were analyzed from February 23 to July 14, 2024.Main Outcomes and MeasuresThe primary outcome was BC use per 1000 patient-days. Adjusted means with 95% CIs were calculated using mixed-effects negative binomial regression models adjusted for unit type, hospital bed size, geographic region, seasonality, and state COVID-19 case load, with random intercepts accounting for clustering at unit and hospital levels. Secondary outcomes included blood culture positivity, single BCs, BC contamination, and minimum threshold for BC use where blood culture positivity would be optimized.ResultsA total of 362 327 blood cultures were analyzed from 27 medical ICUs, 35 medical-surgical ICUs, 121 medical wards, and 109 medical-surgical wards from 48 hospitals in 19 states and the District of Columbia. The adjusted mean BC use per 1000 patient-days was 273.1 (95% CI, 270.2-275.9) for medical ICUs, 146.0 (95% CI, 144.5-147.5) for medical-surgical ICUs, 80.3 (95% CI, 79.8-80.7) for medical wards, and 65.1 for medical-surgical wards. Blood culture use was significantly higher across all 4 unit types in hospitals with more than 500 beds compared with 500 or less beds and in the West-Midwest compared with other regions. Single blood culture and positive blood culture rates were below 10% across all 4 unit types. Of the 292 units, 97% had a mean BC contamination rate within 3% of the recommended threshold, and 51% were within 1%. The minimum BC use thresholds (ie, BC use below this number may represent undertesting) were 120 BCs per 1000 patient-days for medical ICUs, 80 BCs per 1000 patient-days for medical-surgical ICUs, and 30 BCs per 1000 patient-days for medical-surgical wards.Conclusions and RelevanceThe findings of this study suggest that blood culture positivity may help determine appropriate BC use for individual unit types.

Abstract Clinical research networks conduct important studies that would not otherwise be performed by other entities. In the case of the Antibacterial Resistance Leadership Group (ARLG), such studies include diagnostic studies using master protocols, controlled phage intervention trials, and studies that evaluate treatment strategies or dynamic interventions, such as sequences of empiric and definitive therapies. However, the value of a clinical research network lies not only in the results from these important studies but in the creation of new approaches derived from collaborative thinking, carefully examining and defining the most important research questions for clinical practice, recognizing and addressing common but suboptimal approaches, and anticipating that the standard approaches of today may be insufficient for tomorrow. This results in the development and implementation of new methodologies and tools for the design, conduct, analyses, and reporting of research studies. These new methodologies directly impact the studies conducted within the network and have a broad and long-lasting impact on the field, enhancing the scientific value and efficiency of generations of research studies. This article describes innovations from the ARLG in diagnostic studies, observational studies, and clinical trials evaluating interventions for the prevention and treatment of antibiotic-resistant bacterial infections.

AbstractIn this overview, we describe important contributions from the Antibacterial Resistance Leadership Group (ARLG) to patient care, clinical trials design, and mentorship while outlining future priorities. The ARLG research agenda is focused on 3 key areas: gram-positive infections, gram-negative infections, and diagnostics. The ARLG has developed an innovative approach to clinical trials design, the desirability of outcome ranking (DOOR), which uses an ordinal measure of global outcome to assess both benefits and harms. DOOR was initially applied to observational studies to determine optimal dosing of vancomycin for methicillin-resistant Staphylcococcus aureus bacteremia and the efficacy of ceftazidime-avibactam versus colistin for the treatment of carbapenem-resistant Enterobacterales infection. DOOR is being successfully applied to the analysis of interventional trials and, in collaboration with the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), for use in registrational trials. In the area of diagnostics, the ARLG developed Master Protocol for Evaluating Multiple Infection Diagnostics (MASTERMIND), an innovative design that allows simultaneous testing of multiple diagnostic platforms in a single study. This approach will be used to compare molecular assays for the identification of fluoroquinolone-resistant Neisseria gonorrhoeae (MASTER GC) and to compare rapid diagnostic tests for bloodstream infections. The ARLG has initiated a first-in-kind randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial in participants with cystic fibrosis who are chronically colonized with Pseudomonas aeruginosa to assess the pharmacokinetics and antimicrobial activity of bacteriophage therapy. Finally, an engaged and highly trained workforce is critical for continued and future success against antimicrobial drug resistance. Thus, the ARLG has developed a robust mentoring program targeted to each stage of research training to attract and retain investigators in the field of antimicrobial resistance research.