Minimizing Time to Optimal Antimicrobial Therapy for Enterobacteriaceae Bloodstream Infections: A Retrospective, Hypothetical Application of Predictive Scoring Tools vs Rapid Diagnostics Tests.

Abstract

BackgroundBloodstream infections (BSIs) due to ceftriaxone (CRO)-resistant Enterobacteriaceae are associated with delays in time to appropriate therapy and worse outcomes compared with infections due to susceptible isolates. However, treating all at-risk patients with empiric carbapenem therapy risks overexposure. Strategies are needed to appropriately balance these competing interests. The purpose of this study was to compare 4 methods for achieving this balance.MethodsThis was a retrospective hypothetical observational study of patients at the Detroit Medical Center with monomicrobial BSIs due to E. coli, K. oxytoca, K. pneumoniae, or P. mirabilis. This study compared the effectiveness of 4 methods to predict CRO resistance at the time of organism isolation. Three methods were based on applying published extended-spectrum beta-lactamase (ESBL) scoring tools. The fourth method was based on the presence or absence of the CTX-M marker from Verigene.ResultsFour hundred fifty-one Enterobacteriaceae BSIs were included, 73 (16%) of which were CRO-resistant. Verigene accurately predicted ceftriaxone susceptibility for 97% of isolates, compared with 70%–81% using the scoring tools (P < .001). Verigene was associated with fewer cases of treatment with CRO when the isolate was CRO-resistant (15% vs 63%–71% with scoring tools) and fewer cases of overtreatment with a carbapenem for CRO-susceptible strains (0.3% vs 10%–12%).ConclusionsVerigene significantly outperformed published ESBL scoring tools for identifying CRO-resistant Enterobacteriaceae BSI. Institutions should validate scoring tools before implementation. Stewardship programs should consider adoption of rapid diagnostic tests to optimize early therapy.