Staphylococcus aureus bacteriuria as a prognosticator for outcome of Staphylococcus aureus bacteremia: a case-control study

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>When <it>Staphylococcus aureus </it>is isolated in urine, it is thought to usually represent hematogenous spread. Because such spread might have special clinical significance, we evaluated predictors and outcomes of <it>S. aureus </it>bacteriuria among patients with <it>S. aureus </it>bacteremia.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>A case-control study was performed at John H. Stroger Jr. Hospital of Cook County among adult inpatients during January 2002-December 2006. Cases and controls had positive and negative urine cultures, respectively, for <it>S. aureus</it>, within 72 hours of positive blood culture for <it>S. aureus</it>. Controls were sampled randomly in a 1:4 ratio. Univariate and multivariable logistic regression analyses were done.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Overall, 59% of patients were African-American, 12% died, 56% of infections had community-onset infections, and 58% were infected with methicillin-susceptible <it>S. aureus </it>(MSSA). Among 61 cases and 247 controls, predictors of <it>S. aureus </it>bacteriuria on multivariate analysis were urological surgery (OR = 3.4, p = 0.06) and genitourinary infection (OR = 9.2, p = 0.002). Among patients who died, there were significantly more patients with bacteriuria than among patients who survived (39% vs. 17%; p = 0.002). In multiple Cox regression analysis, death risks in bacteremic patients were bacteriuria (hazard ratio 2.9, CI 1.4-5.9, p = 0.004), bladder catheter use (2.0, 1.0-4.0, p = 0.06), and Charlson score (1.1, 1.1-1.3, p = 0.02). Neither length of stay nor methicillin-resistant <it>Staphylococcus aureus </it>(MRSA) infection was a predictor of <it>S. aureus </it>bacteriuria or death.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>Among patients with <it>S. aureus </it>bacteremia, those with <it>S. aureus </it>bacteriuria had 3-fold higher mortality than those without bacteriuria, even after adjustment for comorbidities. Bacteriuria may identify patients with more severe bacteremia, who are at risk of worse outcomes.</p

Methods for specifying the target difference in a randomised controlled trial : the Difference ELicitation in TriAls (DELTA) systematic review

Peer reviewedPublisher PD

Cost-effectiveness of minimal interventional procedures for chronic mechanical low back pain: design of four randomised controlled trials with an economic evaluation

Background: Minimal interventional procedures are frequently applied in patients with mechanical low back pain which is defined as pain presumably resulting from single sources: facet, disc, sacroiliac joint or a combination of these. Usually, these minimal interventional procedures are an integral part of a multidisciplinary pain programme. A recent systematic review issued by the Dutch Health Insurance Council showed that the effectiveness of these procedures for the total group of patients with chronic low back pain is yet unclear and cost-effectiveness unknown. The aim of the study is to evaluate whether a multidisciplinary pain programme with minimal interventional procedures is cost-effective compared to the multidisciplinary pain programme alone for patients with chronic mechanical low back pain who did not respond to conservative primary care and were referred to a pain clinic. Methods. All patients with chronic low back pain who are referred to one of the 13 participating pain clinics will be asked to participate in an observational study. Patients with a suspected diagnosis of facet, disc or sacroiliac joint problems will receive a diagnostic block to confirm this diagnosis. If confirmed, they will be asked to participate in a Randomized Controlled Trial (RCT). For each single source a separate RCT will be conducted. Patients with a combination of facet, disc or sacroiliac joint problems will be invited for participation in a RCT as well. An economic evaluation from a societal perspective will be performed alongside these four RCTs. Patients will complete questionnaires at baseline, 3 and 6 weeks, 3, 6, 9 and 12 months after start of the treatment

Minimal changes in health status questionnaires: distinction between minimally detectable change and minimally important change

Changes in scores on health status questionnaires are difficult to interpret. Several methods to determine minimally important changes (MICs) have been proposed which can broadly be divided in distribution-based and anchor-based methods. Comparisons of these methods have led to insight into essential differences between these approaches. Some authors have tried to come to a uniform measure for the MIC, such as 0.5 standard deviation and the value of one standard error of measurement (SEM). Others have emphasized the diversity of MIC values, depending on the type of anchor, the definition of minimal importance on the anchor, and characteristics of the disease under study. A closer look makes clear that some distribution-based methods have been merely focused on minimally detectable changes. For assessing minimally important changes, anchor-based methods are preferred, as they include a definition of what is minimally important. Acknowledging the distinction between minimally detectable and minimally important changes is useful, not only to avoid confusion among MIC methods, but also to gain information on two important benchmarks on the scale of a health status measurement instrument. Appreciating the distinction, it becomes possible to judge whether the minimally detectable change of a measurement instrument is sufficiently small to detect minimally important changes

Towards standardized measurement of adverse events in spine surgery: conceptual model and pilot evaluation

BACKGROUND: Independent of efficacy, information on safety of surgical procedures is essential for informed choices. We seek to develop standardized methodology for describing the safety of spinal operations and apply these methods to study lumbar surgery. We present a conceptual model for evaluating the safety of spine surgery and describe development of tools to measure principal components of this model: (1) specifying outcome by explicit criteria for adverse event definition, mode of ascertainment, cause, severity, or preventability, and (2) quantitatively measuring predictors such as patient factors, comorbidity, severity of degenerative spine disease, and invasiveness of spine surgery. METHODS: We created operational definitions for 176 adverse occurrences and established multiple mechanisms for reporting them. We developed new methods to quantify the severity of adverse occurrences, degeneration of lumbar spine, and invasiveness of spinal procedures. Using kappa statistics and intra-class correlation coefficients, we assessed agreement for the following: four reviewers independently coding etiology, preventability, and severity for 141 adverse occurrences, two observers coding lumbar spine degenerative changes in 10 selected cases, and two researchers coding invasiveness of surgery for 50 initial cases. RESULTS: During the first six months of prospective surveillance, rigorous daily medical record reviews identified 92.6% of the adverse occurrences we recorded, and voluntary reports by providers identified 38.5% (surgeons reported 18.3%, inpatient rounding team reported 23.1%, and conferences discussed 6.1%). Trained observers had fair agreement in classifying etiology of 141 adverse occurrences into 18 categories (kappa = 0.35), but agreement was substantial (kappa ≥ 0.61) for 4 specific categories: technical error, failure in communication, systems failure, and no error. Preventability assessment had moderate agreement (mean weighted kappa = 0.44). Adverse occurrence severity rating had fair agreement (mean weighted kappa = 0.33) when using a scale based on the JCAHO Sentinel Event Policy, but agreement was substantial for severity ratings on a new 11-point numerical severity scale (ICC = 0.74). There was excellent inter-rater agreement for a lumbar degenerative disease severity score (ICC = 0.98) and an index of surgery invasiveness (ICC = 0.99). CONCLUSION: Composite measures of disease severity and surgery invasiveness may allow development of risk-adjusted predictive models for adverse events in spine surgery. Standard measures of adverse events and risk adjustment may also facilitate post-marketing surveillance of spinal devices, effectiveness research, and quality improvement

Patient and Hospital-Level Characteristics Associated with the Use of Do-Not-Resuscitate Orders in Patients Hospitalized for Sepsis

BACKGROUND: Identifying factors associated with do-not-resuscitate (DNR) orders is an informative step in developing strategies to improve their use. As such, a descriptive analysis of the factors associated with the use of DNR orders in the early and late phases of hospitalizations for sepsis was performed. METHODS: A retrospective cohort of adult patients hospitalized for sepsis was identified using a statewide administrative database. DNR orders placed within 24 h of hospitalization (early DNR) and after 24 h of hospitalization (late DNR) were the primary outcome variables. Multivariable logistic regression analysis was used to identify patient, hospital, and healthcare system-related factors associated with the use of early and late DNR orders. RESULTS: Among 77,329 patients hospitalized for sepsis, 27.5 % had a DNR order during their hospitalization. Among the cases with a DNR order, 75.5 % had the order within 24 h of hospitalization. Smaller hospital size and the absence of a teaching program increased the likelihood of an early DNR order being written. Additionally, greater patient age, female gender, White race, more medical comorbidities, Medicare payer status and admission from a skilled nursing facility were all significantly associated with the likelihood of having an early DNR. The strength of association between these factors and the use of late DNR orders was weaker. In contrast, the greater the burden of medical comorbidities, the more likely a patient was to receive a late DNR order. CONCLUSION: Multiple patient, hospital, and healthcare system-related factors are associated with the use of DNR orders in sepsis, many of which appear to be independent of a patient’s clinical status. Over the course of the hospitalization, the burden of medical illness shows a stronger association relative to other variables. The influence of these multi-level factors needs to be recognized in strategies to improve the use of DNR orders. . ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s11606-014-2906-x) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users