Evidence Hub

Contemporary Clinical and Molecular Epidemiology of Vancomycin-Resistant Enterococcal Bacteremia: A Prospective Multicenter Cohort Study (VENOUS I)

G. Contreras, J. Munita, Shelby R. Simar, C. Luterbach, An Q. Dinh, K. Rydell, P. Sahasrabhojane, Rafael Ríos et al.

Open Forum Infectious Diseases, 2021

46 citations

Abstract

Abstract Background Vancomycin-resistant enterococci (VRE) are major therapeutic challenges. Prospective contemporary data characterizing the clinical and molecular epidemiology of VRE bloodstream infections (BSIs) are lacking. Methods The Vancomycin-Resistant Enterococcal BSI Outcomes Study (VENOUS I) is a prospective observational cohort of adult patients with enterococcal BSI in 11 US hospitals. We included patients with Enterococcus faecalis or Enterococcus faecium BSI with ≥1 follow-up blood culture(s) within 7 days and availability of isolate(s) for further characterization. The primary study outcome was in-hospital mortality. Secondary outcomes were mortality at days 4, 7, 10, 12, and 15 after index blood culture. A desirability of outcome ranking was constructed to assess the association of vancomycin resistance with outcomes. All index isolates were subjected to whole genome sequencing. Results Forty-two of 232 (18%) patients died in hospital and 39 (17%) exhibited microbiological failure (lack of clearance in the first 4 days). Neutropenia (hazard ratio [HR], 3.13), microbiological failure (HR, 2.4), VRE BSI (HR, 2.13), use of urinary catheter (HR, 1.85), and Pitt BSI score ≥2 (HR, 1.83) were significant predictors of in-hospital mortality. Microbiological failure was the strongest predictor of in-hospital mortality in patients with E faecium bacteremia (HR, 5.03). The impact of vancomycin resistance on mortality in our cohort changed throughout the course of…

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.

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