• Plos One · Jan 2012

    Multicenter Study

    Derivation and validation of a scoring system to identify patients with bacteremia and hematological malignancies at higher risk for mortality.

    • Mario Tumbarello, Enrico Maria Trecarichi, Morena Caira, Anna Candoni, Domenico Pastore, Chiara Cattaneo, Rosa Fanci, Annamaria Nosari, Antonio Spadea, Alessandro Busca, Nicola Vianelli, Teresa Spanu, Livio Pagano, and He.M.A.B.I.S. (Hematological Malignancies Associated Bacterial Infections Surveillance) Italy.
    • Istituto di Clinica delle Malattie Infettive, Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, Roma, Italy. tumbarello@rm.unicatt.it
    • Plos One. 2012 Jan 1; 7 (12): e51612.

    BackgroundThe aim of this study was to develop and validate a reliable clinical prediction rule that could be employed to identify patients at higher likelihood of mortality among those with hematological malignancies (HMs) and bacterial bloodstream infections (BBSIs).Methods And FindingsWe conducted a retrospective cohort study in nine Italian hematological units. The derivation cohort consisted of adult patients with BBSI and HMs admitted to the Catholic University Hospital (Rome) between January 2002 and December 2008. Survivors and nonsurvivors were compared to identify predictors of 30-day mortality. The validation cohort consisted of patients hospitalized with BBSI and HMs who were admitted in 8 other Italian hematological units between January 2009 and December 2010. The inclusion and exclusion criteria were identical for both cohorts, with type and stage of HMs used as matching criteria. In the derivation set (247 episodes), the multivariate analysis yielded the following significant mortality-related risk factors acute renal failure (Odds Ratio [OR] 6.44, Confidential Interval [CI], 2.36-17.57, P<0.001); severe neutropenia (absolute neutrophil count <100/mm(3)) (OR 4.38, CI, 2.04-9.43, P<0.001); nosocomial infection (OR, 3.73, CI, 1.36-10.22, P = 0.01); age ≥65 years (OR, 3.42, CI, 1.49-7.80, P = 0.003); and Charlson Comorbidity Index ≥4 (OR, 3.01, CI 1.36-6.65, P = 0.006). The variables unable to be evaluated at that time (for example, prolonged neutropenia) were not included in the final logistic model. The equal-weight risk score model, which assigned 1 point to each risk factor, yielded good-excellent discrimination in both cohorts, with areas under the receiver operating curve of 0.83 versus 0.93 (derivation versus validation) and good calibration (Hosmer-Lemshow P = 0.16 versus 0.75).ConclusionsThe risk index accurately identifies patients with HMs and BBSIs at high risk for mortality; a better initial predictive approach may yield better therapeutic decisions for these patients, with an eventual reduction in mortality.

      Pubmed     Free full text   Copy Citation     Plaintext  

      Add institutional full text...

    Notes

     
    Knowledge, pearl, summary or comment to share?
    300 characters remaining
    help        
    You can also include formatting, links, images and footnotes in your notes
    • Simple formatting can be added to notes, such as *italics*, _underline_ or **bold**.
    • Superscript can be denoted by <sup>text</sup> and subscript <sub>text</sub>.
    • Numbered or bulleted lists can be created using either numbered lines 1. 2. 3., hyphens - or asterisks *.
    • Links can be included with: [my link to pubmed](http://pubmed.com)
    • Images can be included with: ![alt text](https://bestmedicaljournal.com/study_graph.jpg "Image Title Text")
    • For footnotes use [^1](This is a footnote.) inline.
    • Or use an inline reference [^1] to refer to a longer footnote elseweher in the document [^1]: This is a long footnote..

    hide…

What will the 'Medical Journal of You' look like?

Start your free 21 day trial now.

We guarantee your privacy. Your email address will not be shared.