Neither Single nor a Combination of Routine Laboratory Parameters can Discriminate between Gram-positive and Gram-negative Bacteremia.

Adequate early empiric antibiotic therapy is pivotal for the outcome of patients with bloodstream infections. In clinical practice the use of surrogate laboratory parameters is frequently proposed to predict underlying bacterial pathogens; however there is no clear evidence for this assumption. In this study, we investigated the discriminatory capacity of predictive models consisting of routinely available laboratory parameters to predict the presence of Gram-positive or Gram-negative bacteremia. Major machine learning algorithms were screened for their capacity to maximize the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (ROC-AUC) for discriminating between Gram-positive and Gram-negative cases. Data from 23,765 patients with clinically suspected bacteremia were screened and 1,180 bacteremic patients were included in the study. A relative predominance of Gram-negative bacteremia (54.0%), which was more pronounced in females (59.1%), was observed. The final model achieved 0.675 ROC-AUC resulting in 44.57% sensitivity and 79.75% specificity. Various parameters presented a significant difference between both genders. In gender-specific models, the discriminatory potency was slightly improved. The results of this study do not support the use of surrogate laboratory parameters for predicting classes of causative pathogens. In this patient cohort, gender-specific differences in various laboratory parameters were observed, indicating differences in the host response between genders.

A risk prediction model for screening bacteremic patients: a cross sectional study.

BACKGROUND: Bacteraemia is a frequent and severe condition with a high mortality rate. Despite profound knowledge about the pre-test probability of bacteraemia, blood culture analysis often results in low rates of pathogen detection and therefore increasing diagnostic costs. To improve the cost-effectiveness of blood culture sampling, we computed a risk prediction model based on highly standardizable variables, with the ultimate goal to identify via an automated decision support tool patients with very low risk for bacteraemia. METHODS: In this retrospective hospital-wide cohort study evaluating 15,985 patients with suspected bacteraemia, 51 variables were assessed for their diagnostic potency. A derivation cohort (n = 14.699) was used for feature and model selection as well as for cut-off specification. Models were established using the A2DE classifier, a supervised Bayesian classifier. Two internally validated models were further evaluated by a validation cohort (n = 1,286). RESULTS: The proportion of neutrophile leukocytes in differential blood count was the best individual variable to predict bacteraemia (ROC-AUC: 0.694). Applying the A2DE classifier, two models, model 1 (20 variables) and model 2 (10 variables) were established with an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (ROC-AUC) of 0.767 and 0.759, respectively. In the validation cohort, ROC-AUCs of 0.800 and 0.786 were achieved. Using predefined cut-off points, 16% and 12% of patients were allocated to the low risk group with a negative predictive value of more than 98.8%. CONCLUSION: Applying the proposed models, more than ten percent of patients with suspected blood stream infection were identified having minimal risk for bacteraemia. Based on these data the application of this model as an automated decision support tool for physicians is conceivable leading to a potential increase in the cost-effectiveness of blood culture sampling. External prospective validation of the model's generalizability is needed for further appreciation of the usefulness of this tool.