Comparative epidemiology of hospital-onset bloodstream infections (HOBSIs) and central line-associated bloodstream infections (CLABSIs) across a three-hospital health system

Jay Krishnan, Erin B. Gettler, Melissa Campbell, Ibukunoluwa C. Kalu, Jessica Seidelman, Becky Smith, Sarah Lewis
{"title":"Comparative epidemiology of hospital-onset bloodstream infections (HOBSIs) and central line-associated bloodstream infections (CLABSIs) across a three-hospital health system","authors":"Jay Krishnan, Erin B. Gettler, Melissa Campbell, Ibukunoluwa C. Kalu, Jessica Seidelman, Becky Smith, Sarah Lewis","doi":"10.1017/ice.2024.38","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<span>Objective:</span><p>To evaluate the comparative epidemiology of hospital-onset bloodstream infection (HOBSI) and central line-associated bloodstream infection (CLABSI)</p><span>Design and Setting:</span><p>Retrospective observational study of HOBSI and CLABSI across a three-hospital healthcare system from 01/01/2017 to 12/31/2021</p><span>Methods:</span><p>HOBSIs were identified as any non-commensal positive blood culture event on or after hospital day 3. CLABSIs were identified based on National Healthcare Safety Network (NHSN) criteria. We performed a time-series analysis to assess comparative temporal trends among HOBSI and CLABSI incidence. Using univariable and multivariable regression analyses, we compared demographics, risk factors, and outcomes between non-CLABSI HOBSI and CLABSI, as HOBSI and CLABSI are not exclusive entities.</p><span>Results:</span><p>HOBSI incidence increased over the study period (IRR 1.006 HOBSI/1,000 patient days; 95% CI 1.001–1.012; <span>P</span> = .03), while no change in CLABSI incidence was observed (IRR .997 CLABSIs/1,000 central line days, 95% CI .992–1.002, <span>P</span> = .22). Differing demographic, microbiologic, and risk factor profiles were observed between CLABSIs and non-CLABSI HOBSIs. Multivariable analysis found lower odds of mortality among patients with CLABSIs when adjusted for covariates that approximate severity of illness (OR .27; 95% CI .11–.64; <span>P</span> &lt; .01).</p><span>Conclusions:</span><p>HOBSI incidence increased over the study period without a concurrent increase in CLABSI in our study population. Furthermore, risk factor and outcome profiles varied between CLABSI and non-CLABSI HOBSI, which suggest that these metrics differ in important ways worth considering if HOBSI is adopted as a quality metric.</p>","PeriodicalId":13558,"journal":{"name":"Infection Control & Hospital Epidemiology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-03-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Infection Control & Hospital Epidemiology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/ice.2024.38","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

Objective:

To evaluate the comparative epidemiology of hospital-onset bloodstream infection (HOBSI) and central line-associated bloodstream infection (CLABSI)

Design and Setting:

Retrospective observational study of HOBSI and CLABSI across a three-hospital healthcare system from 01/01/2017 to 12/31/2021

Methods:

HOBSIs were identified as any non-commensal positive blood culture event on or after hospital day 3. CLABSIs were identified based on National Healthcare Safety Network (NHSN) criteria. We performed a time-series analysis to assess comparative temporal trends among HOBSI and CLABSI incidence. Using univariable and multivariable regression analyses, we compared demographics, risk factors, and outcomes between non-CLABSI HOBSI and CLABSI, as HOBSI and CLABSI are not exclusive entities.

Results:

HOBSI incidence increased over the study period (IRR 1.006 HOBSI/1,000 patient days; 95% CI 1.001–1.012; P = .03), while no change in CLABSI incidence was observed (IRR .997 CLABSIs/1,000 central line days, 95% CI .992–1.002, P = .22). Differing demographic, microbiologic, and risk factor profiles were observed between CLABSIs and non-CLABSI HOBSIs. Multivariable analysis found lower odds of mortality among patients with CLABSIs when adjusted for covariates that approximate severity of illness (OR .27; 95% CI .11–.64; P < .01).

Conclusions:

HOBSI incidence increased over the study period without a concurrent increase in CLABSI in our study population. Furthermore, risk factor and outcome profiles varied between CLABSI and non-CLABSI HOBSI, which suggest that these metrics differ in important ways worth considering if HOBSI is adopted as a quality metric.

一家三甲医院医疗系统的院内血流感染(HOBSI)和中心静脉相关性血流感染(CLABSI)流行病学比较
目的:评估医院感染性血流感染(HOBSI)和中心管路相关性血流感染(CLABSI)的流行病学比较设计和设置:2017 年 1 月 1 日至 2021 年 12 月 31 日期间,在三家医院的医疗系统中对 HOBSI 和 CLABSI 进行回顾性观察研究方法:HOBSI 是指在住院第 3 天或之后发生的任何非同源性血培养阳性事件。CLABSI是根据美国国家医疗安全网络(NHSN)标准确定的。我们进行了时间序列分析,以评估 HOBSI 和 CLABSI 发生率的时间趋势对比。通过单变量和多变量回归分析,我们比较了非 CLABSI HOBSI 和 CLABSI 之间的人口统计学、风险因素和结果,因为 HOBSI 和 CLABSI 并非相互排斥的实体。结果:HOBSI 发生率在研究期间有所上升(IRR 1.006 HOBSI/1,000 患者日;95% CI 1.001-1.012;P = .03),而 CLABSI 发生率没有变化(IRR 0.997 CLABSIs/1,000 中心管路日;95% CI 0.992-1.002;P = .22)。在 CLABSI 和非 CLABSI HOBSI 之间观察到了不同的人口统计学、微生物学和风险因素特征。多变量分析发现,在对近似病情严重程度的协变量进行调整后,CLABSIs 患者的死亡率较低(OR .27; 95% CI .11-.64; P < .01)。此外,CLABSI 和非 CLABSI HOBSI 的风险因素和结果情况各不相同,这表明如果将 HOBSI 作为质量指标,这些指标在一些重要方面存在差异,值得考虑。
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
文献相关原料
公司名称 产品信息 采购帮参考价格
×
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