Clinical presentation and outcome of hemodialysis tunneled catheter-related bloodstream infection in older persons

BACKGROUND

The use of a tunneled catheter as the primary vascular access among old hemodialysis patients is frequent. Catheter-related bloodstream infection (CRBSI) is a common complication, associated with increased mortality. Data regarding the clinical presentation and outcomes of CRBSI among old hemodialysis patients is limited.

METHODS

All chronic hemodialysis patients hospitalized between 2010 and 2022 with CRBSI were included. Patients were classified into two groups: old adults (≥ 75) and younger patients. Clinical, microbiological, and outcome data were collected and analyzed.

RESULTS

One hundred and fifty-four patients with CRBSI were identified. Fifty-seven were aged ≥ 75 years. Mean age in the older and younger groups was 81.2 ± 5 and 59.7 ± 12.7, respectively. Male gender was predominant (64%). Charlson comorbidity score and Pitt bacteremia score were comparable among both groups. Norton score < 14 was more common among old persons (n = 24, 67% versus n = 21, 31%, p < 0.001), as well as nursing-home residence. Gram-negative pathogens and Staphylococcus aureus were common in both groups. The frequency of inappropriate empirical antimicrobial treatment was higher among older persons. Overall, in-hospital and 90-day mortality was high (age ≥ 75, 36.8%, age < 75, 24.7%, p = 0.14). Age was not significantly associated with mortality after adjustment for low Norton score, residence, and inappropriate antimicrobial therapy as well as resistance patterns of bloodstream isolates [OR = 1.2 (95% CI 0.4-3.3), p = 0.76].

CONCLUSIONS

Clinical characteristics and outcomes of CRBSI were comparable among old and young hemodialysis patients. However, the high mortality rate in this cohort suggests that the use of tunneled catheters as a permanent vascular access should be discouraged in both patient groups.

An international multicenter study comparing COVID-19 omicron outcomes in patients with hematological malignancies treated with obinutuzumab versus rituximab

OBJECTIVES

Hematological malignancy (HM) patients treated with anti-CD20 monoclonal antibodies are at higher risk for severe COVID-19. A previous single-center study showed worse outcomes in patients treated with obinutuzumab compared to rituximab. We examined this hypothesis in a large international multicenter cohort.

METHODS

We included HM patients from 15 centers, from five countries treated with anti-CD20, comparing those treated with obinutuzumab (O-G) to rituximab (R-G) between December 2021 and June 2022, when Omicron lineage was dominant.

RESULTS

We collected data on 1048 patients. Within the R-G (n = 762, 73%), 191 (25%) contracted COVID-19 compared to 103 (36%) in the O-G. COVID-19 patients in the O-G were younger (61 ± 11.7 vs. 64 ± 14.5, p = 0.039), had more indolent HM diagnosis (aggressive lymphoma: 3.9% vs. 67.0%, p < 0.001), and most were on maintenance therapy at COVID-19 diagnosis (63.0% vs. 16.8%, p < 0.001). Severe-critical COVID-19 occurred in 31.1% of patients in the O-G and 22.5% in the R-G. In multivariable analysis, O-G had a 2.08-fold increased risk for severe-critical COVID-19 compared to R-G (95% CI 1.13-3.84), adjusted for Charlson comorbidity index, sex, and tixagevimab/cilgavimab (T-C) prophylaxis. Further analysis comparing O-G to R-G demonstrated increased hospitalizations (51.5% vs. 35.6% p = 0.008), ICU admissions (12.6% vs. 5.8%, p = 0.042), but the nonsignificant difference in COVID-19-related mortality (n = 10, 9.7% vs. n = 12, 6.3%, p = 0.293).

CONCLUSIONS

Despite younger age and a more indolent HM diagnosis, patients receiving obinutuzumab had more severe COVID-19 outcomes than those receiving rituximab. Our findings underscore the need to evaluate the risk-benefit balance when considering obinutuzumab therapy for HM patients during respiratory viral outbreaks.

The use of a diversion tube to reduce blood culture contamination: A "real-life" quality improvement intervention study

BACKGROUND

Blood culture contamination is associated with health care costs and potential patient harm. Diversion of the initial blood specimen reduces blood culture contamination. We report results of the "real-life" clinical implementation of this technique.

METHODS

Following an educational campaign, use of a dedicated diversion tube was recommended prior to all blood cultures. Blood culture sets taken from adults using a diversion tube were defined as "diversion sets," those without, "non-diversion" sets. Blood culture contamination and true positive rates were compared for diversion and nondiversion sets and to nondiversion historical controls. A secondary analysis investigated efficacy of diversion by patient age.

RESULTS

Out of 20,107 blood culture sets drawn, the diversion group included 12,774 (60.5%) and the nondiversion group 8,333 (39.5%) sets. The historical control group included 32,472 sets. Comparing nondiversion to diversion, contamination decreased by 31% (5.5% [461/8333] to 3.8% [489/12744], P < .0001]. Contamination was also 12% lower in diversion than historical controls [3.8% (489/12744) vs 4.3% (1,396/33,174) P = .02)]. The rate of true bacteremia was similar. In older patients, contamination rate was higher, and the relative reduction associated with diversion decreased (54.3% amongst 20-40-year-olds vs 14.5% amongst >80-year-olds).

CONCLUSIONS

Use of a diversion tube in the ED reduced blood culture contamination in this large real life observational study. Efficacy decreased with increasing age, which requires further investigation.