Back to Authors

Group, for the Antibacterial Resistance Leadership

Mayo Clinic

No affiliation available

Citations 1

Clinical Impact of Ceftriaxone Resistance in Escherichia coli Bloodstream Infections: A Multicenter Prospective Cohort Study
Tamma, Pranita D. , Komarow, Lauren , Ge, Lizhao , Herc, Erica , Doi, Yohei , Arias, César A. , Albin, Owen , Jacob, Jesse T. , Satlin, Michael J. , Kršák, Martin , Dhar, Sorabh , Shelburne, Samuel A. , Hill, Carol , Baum, Keri, Bhojani, Minal, Greenwood‐Quaintance, Kerryl E. , Schmidt-Malan, Suzannah M., Patel, Robin , Chambers, Henry F. , Fowler, Vance G. , Group, for the Antibacterial Resistance Leadership, Doi, Yohei , Albin, Owen , Krsak, Martin , Shelburne, Samuel A , Patel, Robin , Evans, Scott R , van Duin, David , Tamma, Pranita D , Jacob, Jesse T , Garcia‐Diaz, Julia , Arias, César A. , Saade, Elie , Miller, Loren G , Huskins, W. Charles , Evans, Scott , Fowler, Vance G. , Group, for the Antibacterial Resistance Leadership

Open Forum Infectious Diseases | October 26, 2022 | Volume: 9 | Issue: 11 | Pages: No page available

10.1093/ofid/ofac572 Get It

Abstract Background Ceftriaxone-resistant (CRO-R) Escherichia coli bloodstream infections (BSIs) are common. Methods This is a prospective cohort of patients with E coli BSI at 14 United States hospitals between November 2020 and April 2021. For each patient with a CRO-R E coli BSI enrolled, the next consecutive patient with a ceftriaxone-susceptible (CRO-S) E coli BSI was included. Primary outcome was desirability of outcome ranking (DOOR) at day 30, with 50% probability of worse outcomes in the CRO-R group as the null hypothesis. Inverse probability weighting (IPW) was used to reduce confounding. Results Notable differences between patients infected with CRO-R and CRO-S E coli BSI included the proportion with Pitt bacteremia score ≥4 (23% vs 15%, P = .079) and the median time to active antibiotic therapy (12 hours [interquartile range {IQR}, 1–35 hours] vs 1 hour [IQR, 0–6 hours]; P < .001). Unadjusted DOOR analyses indicated a 58% probability (95% confidence interval [CI], 52%–63%) for a worse clinical outcome in CRO-R versus CRO-S BSI. In the IPW-adjusted cohort, no difference was observed (54% [95% CI, 47%–61%]). Secondary outcomes included unadjusted and adjusted differences in the proportion of 30-day mortality between CRO-R and CRO-S BSIs (−5.3% [95% CI, −10.3% to −.4%] and −1.8 [95% CI, −6.7% to 3.2%], respectively), postculture median length of stay (8 days [IQR, 5–13 days] vs 6 days [IQR, 4–9 days]; P < .001), and incident admission to a long-term care facility (22% vs 12%, P = .045). Conclusions Patients with CRO-R E coli BSI generally have poorer outcomes compared to patients infected with CRO-S E coli BSI, even after adjusting for important confounders.