The accuracy of fully-automated algorithms for the surveillance of central venous catheter-related bloodstream infection in hospitalised patients

Moa Karmefors Idvall, Hideyuki Tanushi, Andreas Berge, Pontus Nauclér, Suzanne Desirée van der Werff
{"title":"The accuracy of fully-automated algorithms for the surveillance of central venous catheter-related bloodstream infection in hospitalised patients","authors":"Moa Karmefors Idvall, Hideyuki Tanushi, Andreas Berge, Pontus Nauclér, Suzanne Desirée van der Werff","doi":"10.1186/s13756-024-01373-w","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Continuous surveillance for healthcare-associated infections such as central venous catheter-related bloodstream infections (CVC-BSI) is crucial for prevention. However, traditional surveillance methods are resource-intensive and prone to bias. This study aimed to develop and validate fully-automated surveillance algorithms for CVC-BSI. Two algorithms were developed using electronic health record data from 1000 admissions with a positive blood culture (BCx) at Karolinska University Hospital from 2017: (1) Combining microbiological findings in BCx and CVC cultures with BSI symptoms; (2) Only using microbiological findings. These algorithms were validated in 5170 potential CVC-BSI-episodes from all admissions in 2018–2019, and results extrapolated to all potential CVC-BSI-episodes within this period (n = 181,354). The reference standard was manual record review according to ECDC’s definition of microbiologically confirmed CVC-BSI (CRI3-CVC). In the potential CVC-BSI-episodes, 51 fulfilled ECDC’s definition and the algorithms identified 47 and 49 episodes as CVC-BSI, respectively. Both algorithms performed well in assessing CVC-BSI. Overall, algorithm 2 performed slightly better with in the total period a sensitivity of 0.880 (95%-CI 0.783–0.959), specificity of 1.000 (95%-CI 0.999–1.000), PPV of 0.918 (95%-CI 0.833–0.981) and NPV of 1.000 (95%-CI 0.999–1.000). Incidence according to the reference and algorithm 2 was 0.33 and 0.31 per 1000 in-patient hospital-days, respectively. Both fully-automated surveillance algorithms for CVC-BSI performed well and could effectively replace manual surveillance. The simpler algorithm, using only microbiology data, is suitable when BCx testing adheres to recommendations, otherwise the algorithm using symptom data might be required. Further validation in other settings is necessary to assess the algorithms’ generalisability.","PeriodicalId":501612,"journal":{"name":"Antimicrobial Resistance & Infection Control","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-02-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Antimicrobial Resistance & Infection Control","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s13756-024-01373-w","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Continuous surveillance for healthcare-associated infections such as central venous catheter-related bloodstream infections (CVC-BSI) is crucial for prevention. However, traditional surveillance methods are resource-intensive and prone to bias. This study aimed to develop and validate fully-automated surveillance algorithms for CVC-BSI. Two algorithms were developed using electronic health record data from 1000 admissions with a positive blood culture (BCx) at Karolinska University Hospital from 2017: (1) Combining microbiological findings in BCx and CVC cultures with BSI symptoms; (2) Only using microbiological findings. These algorithms were validated in 5170 potential CVC-BSI-episodes from all admissions in 2018–2019, and results extrapolated to all potential CVC-BSI-episodes within this period (n = 181,354). The reference standard was manual record review according to ECDC’s definition of microbiologically confirmed CVC-BSI (CRI3-CVC). In the potential CVC-BSI-episodes, 51 fulfilled ECDC’s definition and the algorithms identified 47 and 49 episodes as CVC-BSI, respectively. Both algorithms performed well in assessing CVC-BSI. Overall, algorithm 2 performed slightly better with in the total period a sensitivity of 0.880 (95%-CI 0.783–0.959), specificity of 1.000 (95%-CI 0.999–1.000), PPV of 0.918 (95%-CI 0.833–0.981) and NPV of 1.000 (95%-CI 0.999–1.000). Incidence according to the reference and algorithm 2 was 0.33 and 0.31 per 1000 in-patient hospital-days, respectively. Both fully-automated surveillance algorithms for CVC-BSI performed well and could effectively replace manual surveillance. The simpler algorithm, using only microbiology data, is suitable when BCx testing adheres to recommendations, otherwise the algorithm using symptom data might be required. Further validation in other settings is necessary to assess the algorithms’ generalisability.
全自动算法监测住院患者中心静脉导管相关血流感染的准确性
对中心静脉导管相关血流感染(CVC-BSI)等医疗相关感染进行持续监测对于预防至关重要。然而,传统的监测方法需要大量资源,而且容易产生偏差。本研究旨在开发和验证针对 CVC-BSI 的全自动监测算法。利用卡罗林斯卡大学医院自2017年以来1000例血培养(BCx)阳性入院患者的电子健康记录数据,开发了两种算法:(1)将BCx和CVC培养中的微生物结果与BSI症状相结合;(2)仅使用微生物结果。这些算法在2018-2019年所有入院患者中的5170个潜在CVC-BSI病例中进行了验证,并将结果推断为这一时期内的所有潜在CVC-BSI病例(n = 181354)。参考标准是根据 ECDC 的微生物确诊 CVC-BSI 定义(CRI3-CVC)进行人工记录审查。在潜在的 CVC-BSI 病例中,有 51 例符合 ECDC 的定义,算法分别将 47 例和 49 例确定为 CVC-BSI。两种算法在评估 CVC-BSI 方面均表现良好。总体而言,算法 2 的表现略胜一筹,总体灵敏度为 0.880(95%-CI 0.783-0.959),特异性为 1.000(95%-CI 0.999-1.000),PPV 为 0.918(95%-CI 0.833-0.981),NPV 为 1.000(95%-CI 0.999-1.000)。参考算法和算法 2 的发病率分别为每 1000 个住院日 0.33 例和 0.31 例。两种针对 CVC-BSI 的全自动监测算法均表现良好,可有效取代人工监测。当 BCx 检测符合建议时,仅使用微生物学数据的简单算法比较适用,否则可能需要使用症状数据的算法。有必要在其他环境中进行进一步验证,以评估算法的通用性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信