Evidence Hub

Defining persistent Staphylococcus aureus bacteraemia: secondary analysis of a prospective cohort study

R. Kuehl, L. Morata, C. Boeing, I. Subirana, H. Seifert, S. Rieg, Winfried V. Kern, Hong Bin Kim et al.

Lancet. Infectious Diseases (Print), 2020

1,588 participants · 123 citations

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Staphylococcus aureus persistent bacteraemia is only vaguely defined and the effect of different durations of bacteraemia on mortality is not well established. Our primary aim was to analyse mortality according to duration of bacteraemia and to derive a clinically relevant definition for persistent bacteraemia.

METHODS

We did a secondary analysis of a prospective observational cohort study at 17 European centres (nine in the UK, six in Spain, and two in Germany), with recruitment between Jan 1, 2013, and April 30, 2015. Adult patients who were consecutively hospitalised with monomicrobial S aureus bacteraemia were included. Patients were excluded if no follow-up blood culture was taken, if the first follow-up blood-culture was after 7 days, or if active antibiotic therapy was started more than 3 days after first blood culture. The primary outcome was 90-day mortality. Univariable and time-dependent multivariable Cox regression analysis were used to assess predictors of mortality. Duration of bacteraemia was defined as bacteraemic days under active antibiotic therapy counting the first day as day 1.

FINDINGS

Of 1588 individuals assessed for eligibility, 987 were included (median age 65 years [IQR 51-75]; 625 [63%] male). Death within 90 days occurred in 273 (28%) patients. Patients with more than 1 day of bacteraemia (315 [32%]) had higher Charlson comorbidity index and sequential organ failure assessment scores and a longer interval from first symptom to first…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a secondary / pooled analysis, done in people. Its evidence level is 3 of 5 (Moderate · trial / cohort / secondary analysis). Trials without a large randomized design, cohorts and secondary analyses give moderate evidence. Reported size: 1,588 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free