Evidence Hub

Survival following Staphylococcus aureus bloodstream infection: A prospective multinational cohort study assessing the impact of place of care

K. Nambiar, H. Seifert, S. Rieg, W. Kern, M. Scarborough, N. C. Gordon, Hong Bin Kim, K. Song et al.

Journal of Infection, 2018

1,851 participants · 65 citations

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Staphylococcus aureus bloodstream infection (SAB) is a common, life-threatening infection with a high mortality. Survival can be improved by implementing quality of care bundles in hospitals. We previously observed marked differences in mortality between hospitals and now assessed whether mortality could serve as a valid and easy to implement quality of care outcome measure.

METHODS

We conducted a prospective observational study between January 2013 and April 2015 on consecutive, adult patients with SAB from 11 tertiary care centers in Germany, South Korea, Spain, Taiwan, and the United Kingdom. Factors associated with mortality at 90 days were analyzed by Cox proportional hazards regression and flexible parametric models.

RESULTS

1851 patients with a median age of 66 years (64% male) were analyzed. Crude 90-day mortality differed significantly between hospitals (range 23-39%). Significant variation between centers was observed for methicillin-resistant S. aureus, community-acquisition, infective foci, as well as measures of comorbidities, and severity of disease. In multivariable analysis, factors independently associated with mortality at 90 days were age, nosocomial acquisition, unknown infective focus, pneumonia, Charlson comorbidity index, SOFA score, and study center. The risk of death varied over time differently for each infective focus. Crude mortality differed markedly from adjusted mortality.

DISCUSSION

We observed significant differences in adjusted…

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: 1,851 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