Evidence Hub

Bloodstream Infections in Non-ICU Hospitalized Patients: Impact of Pathogen Group on Clinical Outcomes-A Retrospective Cohort Study From Türkiye

Kahraman H, Özmutlu YN, Hafif SA, Keser G, Işık T, Durmaz G, Yılmaz M, Bilgin M et al.

Infection and drug resistance, 2025

537 participants · 1 citation

Abstract

Background: Bloodstream infections (BSIs) in non-intensive care unit (ICU) wards are common yet less well characterized than ICU BSIs. Differences in monitoring intensity, diagnostic timelines, empirical therapy, and local resistance may shape outcomes, but pathogen-specific data in non-ICU settings remain limited. To address this gap, we provide regional data from Türkiye.

Methods: We conducted a retrospective cohort study at a tertiary-care center in Türkiye, including 537 adult non-ICU inpatients with first monomicrobial BSI episodes between January 2020 and November 2023. Pathogens were grouped as Gram-negative, Gram-positive, or fungal. Demographic, clinical, microbiological, and outcome data were analyzed. Independent predictors of mortality were evaluated using multivariable logistic regression.

Results: Among 537 patients (mean age 66.4 ± 16.4 years), Gram-negative pathogens predominated (65.0%), followed by Gram-positive (25.0%) and fungal pathogens (10.1%). The most frequent microorganisms were Escherichia coli (27.7%), Klebsiella spp. (20.7%; including clinically significant resistance), and Staphylococcus aureus (16.9%). Overall, 12.5% required ICU transfer, and in-hospital mortality was 23.3%, higher in fungal infections (46.3%) than bacterial infections (p<0.001). Fungal BSIs were associated with delayed initiation of appropriate therapy. In adjusted analyses, higher Charlson Comorbidity Index (OR 1.20; p<0.001), fungal pathogens (OR 2.41; p=0.026), ICU…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a cohort study, 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: 537 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