Hostname: page-component-6bf8c574d5-956mj Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-02-15T09:41:54.052Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Standardization in the management of gram-negative bloodstream infections after implementation of a clinical care guideline at a large academic, safety-net institution: a quasi-experimental study

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 February 2025

Michael A. Deaney*
Affiliation:
Department of Pharmacy, Denver Health & Hospital Authority, Denver, CO, USA
Katherine C. Shihadeh
Affiliation:
Department of Pharmacy, Denver Health & Hospital Authority, Denver, CO, USA
Alexandra Craig
Affiliation:
Department of Pharmacy, Denver Health & Hospital Authority, Denver, CO, USA
Margaret M. Cooper
Affiliation:
Department of Pharmacy, Denver Health & Hospital Authority, Denver, CO, USA
Paul D. Paratore
Affiliation:
Department of Pharmacy, Denver Health & Hospital Authority, Denver, CO, USA
Timothy C. Jenkins
Affiliation:
Department of Medicine - Infectious Disease, Denver Health & Hospital Authority, Denver, CO, USA
*
Corresponding author: Michael A. Deaney; Email: [email protected]

Abstract

Objective:

To evaluate the impact of implementing a clinical care guideline for uncomplicated gram-negative bloodstream infections (GN-BSI) within a health system.

Design:

Retrospective, quasi-experimental study.

Setting:

A large academic safety-net institution.

Participants:

Adults (≥18 years) with GN-BSI, defined by at least one positive blood culture for specific gram-negative organisms. Patients with polymicrobial cultures or contaminants were excluded.

Interventions:

Implementation of a GN-BSI clinical care guideline based on a 2021 consensus statement, emphasizing 7-day antibiotic courses, use of highly bioavailable oral antibiotics, and minimizing repeat blood cultures.

Results:

The study included 147 patients pre-intervention and 169 post-intervention. Interrupted time series analysis showed a reduction in the median duration of therapy (–2.3 days, P = .0016), with a sustained decline (slope change –0.2103, P = .005) post-intervention. More patients received 7 days of therapy (12.9%–58%, P < .01), oral antibiotic transitions increased (57.8% vs 72.2%, P < .05), and guideline-concordant oral antibiotic selection was high. Repeat blood cultures decreased (50.3% vs 30.2%, P < .01) without an increase in recurrent bacteremia. No significant differences were observed in 90-day length of stay, rehospitalization, recurrence, or mortality.

Conclusions:

Guideline implementation was associated with shorter antibiotic therapy durations, increased use of guideline-concordant oral antibiotics, and fewer repeat blood cultures without compromising patient outcomes. These findings support the effectiveness of institutional guidelines in standardizing care, optimizing resource utilization, and promoting evidence-based practices in infectious disease management.

Type
Original Article
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BY
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution and reproduction, provided the original article is properly cited.
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2025. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of The Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America

Introduction

Gram-negative bloodstream infections (GN-BSI) pose a major healthcare challenge due to their high prevalence, morbidity, mortality and financial burden. Reference Diekema, Hsueh and Mendes1Reference Torio and Moore4 Optimizing management through evidence-based practices is crucial to ensure effective treatment while minimizing adverse effects like antimicrobial resistance, Clostridioides difficile infections, catheter-related complications, and prolonged hospital stays. Reference Tamma, Avdic, Li, Dzintars and Cosgrove5,Reference Kazakova, Baggs and McDonald6 In 2021, Heil et al issued a consensus statement to standardize the management of uncomplicated GN-BSIs, defined as cases involving non-immunocompromised patients that achieved source control and clinical improvement within 72 hours. Reference Heil, Bork and Abbo7 Common sources of uncomplicated GN-BSIs include the urinary tract, intra-abdominal, biliary tract, skin and soft tissue, pneumonia, or catheter-related infections. Key management points included 7-day treatment durations, Reference Yahav, Franceschini and Koppel8Reference Fabre, Amoah, Cosgrove and Tamma13 transitioning to highly bioavailable oral antibiotics, Reference Punjabi, Tien, Meng, Deresinski and Holubar14Reference Kutob, Justo, Bookstaver, Kohn, Albrecht and Al-Hasan17 and avoiding repeat blood cultures. Reference Heil, Bork and Abbo7,Reference Canzoneri, Akhavan, Tosur, Andrade and Aisenberg18Reference Maskarinec, Park and Ruffin21 The objective of this study was to evaluate the effects of implementing a clinical care guideline based on this consensus statement at a large academic safety-net institution.

Methods

In September 2022, Denver Health Medical Center’s Antimicrobial Stewardship Program introduced a clinical care guideline for uncomplicated GN-BSI to standardize care and promote evidence-based management. Aligned with the consensus statement by Heil et al, Reference Heil, Bork and Abbo7 the guideline emphasized 7-day treatment durations, limited use of repeat blood cultures, and transitioning from intravenous to highly bioavailable oral therapy after 24–48 hours of clinical stability. Recommended oral options included levofloxacin, trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole (TMP-SMX), and cephalexin. Clinicians were advised to consider susceptibilities and clinical factors when selecting therapy, with high-dose cephalexin (1 gram given thrice daily) as the preferred oral beta-lactam due to its favorable pharmacokinetics and toxicity profile as well as narrow spectrum of activity. Reference Heil, Bork and Abbo7 The guideline was accessible to clinical staff through the Denver Health Antimicrobial Stewardship Mobile Application and intranet. Awareness of the guideline was also promoted via a newsletter and direct communication from representatives of the Antimicrobial Subcommittee that approved the guideline. Infectious Diseases pharmacists reviewed positive blood cultures and provided feedback to clinicians to promote use of the guideline. Of note, an intervention to reduce routine use of repeat blood cultures via a best-practice advisory alert was implemented more than two years prior in January 2020.

This was a retrospective, quasi-experimental study comparing patients admitted with a GN-BSI before (January 2019–December 2019) and after (October 2022–September 2023) guideline implementation. The COVID-19 pandemic resulted in a delay in the development and implementation of the guideline and thus a gap between the two periods; however, this may have served to reduce potential confounding of outcomes during the early pandemic. Reference French, Hulse and Nguyen22Reference Neupane, De Jonge and Angelo24 Patients were included if they were over 18 years old, admitted during the study period, and had at least one positive blood culture with one of the following organisms: Acinetobacter spp., Citrobacter spp., Enterobacter spp., Escherichia coli, Klebsiella spp., Morganella morganii, Proteus spp., Providencia stuartii, Pseudomonas spp., Serratia spp., and Stenotrophomonas maltophilia. Patients with polymicrobial cultures or an organism thought to be a contaminant were excluded. Automated antimicrobial susceptibility testing was performed using the MicroScan system.

The primary outcome was the difference in antibiotic duration. Secondary outcomes included the proportion receiving seven days of therapy, oral switch therapy, and repeat blood cultures. Safety outcomes included length of hospitalization and 90-day incidence of rehospitalization, recurrence of GN-BSI (defined as a positive blood culture with the same organism as the index case), all-cause mortality, and C. difficile infection (defined as a positive polymerase chain reaction or toxin assay test). Patients who did not survive the initial hospitalization were not censored.

Trends in the primary outcome were analyzed using interrupted time series (ITS) analysis with an ARMA(0,1) regression model. R was used for development of the regression model and ITS analysis. The analysis was constructed using monthly median days of therapy with 12 points of data before and after the intervention. Other results were analyzed using the Mann-Whitney U test and χ2 test, with differences considered significant with a P-value of < .05.

This project was reviewed by the Denver Health’s Quality Improvement Committee, authorized by the Colorado Multiple Institutional Review Board (COMIRB), and deemed not human subject research, thus exempt from IRB review.

Results

A total of 147 patients were included from the pre-intervention period and 169 from the post-intervention period. Baseline characteristics of patients and their infections are shown in Table 1. Age, gender, and Charlson comorbidity index scores were similar between groups. The median Pitt Bacteremia Score was one in both groups (P = .51), and there were fewer patients in the intensive care unit at the time of first blood culture in the post-intervention period (42.9% vs 32%, P < .05). Escherichia coli was the most common pathogen in both periods (over 50%), followed by Klebsiella pneumoniae and Enterobacter cloacae. More than half of infections originated from the urinary tract. There was no significant difference in the number of extended-spectrum beta-lactamase (ESBL)-producing organisms or resistance to oral antibiotics. No carbapenemase-producing organisms were detected. The frequency of Infectious Diseases consults was similar (about 30%) between groups.

Table 1. Comparison of baseline characteristics of included patients and their gram-negative bloodstream infections between cohorts

IQR, interquartile ratio; n, number of members; %, percentage of sample size.

a Acinetobacter baumannii, Citrobacter freundii, Citrobacter koseri, Enterobacter aerogenes, Morganella morganii, Salmonella enterica, Serratia marcescens, and other unidentified species of Enterobacter and Acinetobacter.

b Susceptibilities for cephalexin and cefdinir are extrapolated from cefazolin per the 2024 Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute M100 guidance.

The results of the ITS analysis are displayed in Figure 1. The initial median duration of therapy was 10.5 days and a significant level change (–2.3 days, P = .0016) was observed following the intervention. This was maintained after the intervention and the rate significantly decreased over the course of the post-intervention period (slope change –0.2103, P = .005). In aggregate, patients in the post-intervention period were more likely to be treated with seven days of antibiotics (12.9% vs. 58%, P < .01) and had a lower median duration of therapy (10 vs. 7 days, P < .01) (Table 2).

Figure 1. Interrupted time-series analysis of median duration of antibiotic therapy between pre-intervention and post-intervention periods.

Table 2. Comparison of aggregate primary and secondary outcomes between cohorts

n, number of members; %, percentage of sample size; IQR, interquartile ratio; SD, standard deviation; GN-BSI, gram-negative bloodstream infection.

a Fosfomycin (n = 1).

The use of oral switch therapy was more frequent in the post-intervention period (57.8% vs 72.2%, P < .05), while the mean number of days to oral switch was lower (4.8 vs 4.5 days, P < .05). The use of oral fluoroquinolones (22.4%–37.2%, P < .05), and cephalexin (4.1%–15.4%, P < .01) were higher in the post-intervention period. Conversely, cefdinir and amoxicillin use was lower (14.3%–4.1%, P < .01 and 5.4%–1.2%, P < .05, respectively). The overall use of oral beta-lactams was not significantly different (28.6% vs 26.6%, P = .7). Repeat blood culture collection was lower in the post-intervention period (50.3% vs 30.2%), P < .01), with no significant differences in positivity rates for the same pathogen (2%–2.4%, P = .84). There was a trend toward fewer contaminated blood cultures in the post-intervention period (7 vs 3 cultures, P = .13).

No significant differences were observed in median length of stay or 90-day incidence of rehospitalization, recurrent GN-BSI, or mortality. However, 90-day incidence of C. difficile infection was significantly lower during the post-intervention period (4.8% vs 0.6%, P = .01).

Discussion

Evidence-based local guidelines have been shown to improve the management of multiple infections, including but not limited to pneumonia, skin and soft tissue infections, and acute otitis media. Reference Jenkins, Knepper and Sabel25Reference Haas, Dalton and Knepper28 In the present study, we demonstrate that implementation of an institutional clinical care guideline for uncomplicated GN-BSI was associated with an immediate and sustained reduction in the median duration of antibiotic therapy, highlighting the effectiveness of local guidelines as a tool to shorten treatment durations. We believe local guidelines increase clinician knowledge of evidence-based practices and serve to streamline and standardize decision-making. The addition of Infectious Diseases pharmacist review and feedback serves as an opportunity to promote use of the guideline and reinforce the management concepts with clinicians.

In addition to shorter durations of therapy, implementation of the guideline was associated with more frequent use of oral switch therapy. Furthermore, there was a notable shift toward guideline-recommended antibiotics, such as cephalexin and levofloxacin, and away from cefdinir. The shift from cefdinir to high-dose cephalexin was one intended goal of this intervention, as cefdinir’s poor bioavailability has been linked to worse outcomes in GN-BSI. Reference Kutob, Justo, Bookstaver, Kohn, Albrecht and Al-Hasan17 The increased use of levofloxacin may have in part been due to the increasing incidence ESBL-producing organisms in our health system and other changes in resistance patterns associated with the COVID-19 pandemic. Reference Mai and Espinoza29 Future stewardship efforts could focus on promoting narrower-spectrum agents like beta-lactams when appropriate. These shifts in antibiotic selection reinforce the impact of local guidelines on prescribing practices.

The significant reduction in repeat blood cultures warrants further discussion. The introduction of a best-practice advisory alert discouraging routine repeat cultures prior to the intervention may have contributed to this change, though it is unclear whether the effect was due to the advisory, the guideline, or both. Importantly, there was no increase in recurrent bacteremia, indicating that reduced use of repeat cultures did not compromise patient safety. Additionally, the less frequent use of repeat blood cultures may have contributed to the lower number of contaminated blood cultures in the post-intervention period, a potentially important benefit since contaminated blood cultures have been shown to be associated with unnecessary antimicrobial use and prolongation of hospitalization. Reference Weinstein30Reference Dempsey, Skoglund, Muldrew and Garey34 The absence of significant differences in length of stay, rehospitalization, recurrent infections, and mortality suggests that the guideline’s shorter therapy durations and reduced repeat blood cultures did not negatively impact patient outcomes.

This study has similarities to a prior study by Erickson et al who evaluated an antimicrobial stewardship bundle for uncomplicated GN-BSI prior to the publication of the consensus statement by Heil et al. Reference Heil, Bork and Abbo7,Reference Erickson, Tritle, Spivak and Timbrook35 However, the present study differs by including a larger sample size, a diverse and underserved population, and a more recent study period, reflecting current prescribing practices and resistance trends. Both studies demonstrated reduced treatment duration and repeat blood culture use without increased readmissions, infection recurrence, or mortality, suggesting clinical care guidelines can be effectively and safely implemented across various settings.

Several limitations should be considered. First, the quasi-experimental study design limits the ability to establish a causal relationship between the intervention and practice changes. The time gap between the pre- and post-intervention periods introduces the potential for period effect (eg, other interventions or secular trends influencing outcomes). However, the consistent changes across multiple outcomes – such as duration of therapy, transitioning to oral antibiotics, oral antibiotic selection, and repeat blood cultures – suggest that the guideline was at least in part responsible for those shifts. It is unclear if the observed reduction in C. difficile infections was related to less antibiotic exposure because of this intervention or other organizational C. difficile reduction efforts, such as promoting testing only in patients with true diarrhea and avoiding testing patients who received laxatives, that were also ongoing during the post-intervention period. Second, due to retrospective design, we may have missed clinical outcomes such as deaths, readmissions, and recurrence of gram-negative bacteremia, though these would be expected to be similarly distributed across periods. Third, we did not control for factors that may influence clinical outcomes like appropriateness of initial therapy, location of infection onset (hospital vs community), and antimicrobial resistance. The limited number of ESBL- or carbapenemase-producing organisms may mitigate the latter concern. Finally, the study’s single center-design and limited sample of immunocompromised patients (ie solid organ transplant, neutropenia, etc) limit generalizability.

Implementing a clinical care guideline for uncomplicated GN-BSI significantly reduced antibiotic therapy duration without compromising clinical outcomes. It also promoted guideline-concordant oral antibiotic use and more selective use of repeat blood cultures. These findings underscore the potential of such guidelines to standardize care, enhance antibiotic stewardship, and optimize resource use in managing infectious diseases.

Data availability statement

Data not publicly available.

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank Madeline Quigley, PharmD for their assistance with data collection.

Author contribution

Michael A. Deaney: conceptualization, investigation, data curation, writing—original draft, and writing—review and editing; Katherine C. Shihadeh: conceptualization, resources, writing—review and editing, and supervision; Alexandra Craig: conceptualization, investigation, data curation, and writing—review and editing; Margaret M. Cooper: conceptualization, resources, writing—review and editing, and supervision; Paul D. Paratore: statistical analysis, and writing—review and editing; Timothy C. Jenkins: conceptualization, resources, writing—review and editing, and supervision

Financial support

None reported.

Competing interests

All authors report no conflicts of interest relevant to this article.

Patient consent statement

This project was reviewed by the Quality Improvement Committee of Denver Health (QuIRC), which is authorized by the Colorado Multiple Institutional Review Board at the University of Colorado, Denver (COMIRB), and was determined not to be human subject research. As such this project does not require IRB review.

References

Diekema, DJ, Hsueh, PR, Mendes, RE, et al. The microbiology of bloodstream infection: 20-year trends from the SENTRY antimicrobial surveillance program. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2019;63:e0035519.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sligl, WI, Dragan, T, Smith, SW. Nosocomial Gram-negative bacteremia in intensive care: epidemiology, antimicrobial susceptibilities, and outcomes. Int J Infect Dis 2015;37:129134.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wisplinghoff, H, Bischoff, T, Tallent, SM, Seifert, H, Wenzel, RP, Edmond, MB. Nosocomial bloodstream infections in US hospitals: analysis of 24,179 cases from a prospective nationwide surveillance study. Clin Infect Dis 2004;39:309317.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Torio, CM, Moore, BJ. National inpatient hospital costs: the most expensive conditions by payer, 2013. In: Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project (HCUP) Statistical Briefs. Rockville (MD): Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (US); 2016.Google Scholar
Tamma, PD, Avdic, E, Li, DX, Dzintars, K, Cosgrove, SE. Association of adverse events with antibiotic use in hospitalized patients. JAMA Intern Med 2017;177:13081315.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kazakova, SV, Baggs, J, McDonald, LC, et al. Association between antibiotic use and hospital-onset clostridioides difficile infection in US acute care hospitals, 2006–2012: an ecologic analysis. Clin Infect Dis 2020;70:1118.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Heil, EL, Bork, JT, Abbo, LM, et al. Optimizing the management of uncomplicated gram-negative bloodstream infections: consensus guidance using a modified delphi process. Open Forum Infect Dis 2021;8:434.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Yahav, D, Franceschini, E, Koppel, F, et al. Seven versus 14 days of antibiotic therapy for uncomplicated gram-negative bacteremia: a noninferiority randomized controlled trial. Clin Infect Dis 2019;69:10911098.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chotiprasitsakul, D, Han, JH, Cosgrove, SE, et al. Comparing the outcomes of adults with enterobacteriaceae bacteremia receiving short-course versus prolonged-course antibiotic therapy in a multicenter, propensity score-matched cohort. Clin Infect Dis 2018;66:172177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nelson, AN, Justo, JA, Bookstaver, PB, Kohn, J, Albrecht, H, Al-Hasan, MN. Optimal duration of antimicrobial therapy for uncomplicated Gram-negative bloodstream infections. Infect 2017;45:613620.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
von Dach, E, Albrich, WC, Brunel, AS, et al. Effect of C-reactive protein-guided antibiotic treatment duration, 7-day treatment, or 14-day treatment on 30-day clinical failure rate in patients with uncomplicated gram-negative bacteremia: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA 2020;323:21602169.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hojat, LS, Bessesen, MT, Huang, M, et al. Effectiveness of shorter versus longer durations of therapy for common inpatient infections associated with bacteremia: a multicenter, propensity-weighted cohort study. Clin Infect Dis 2020;71:30713078.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fabre, V, Amoah, J, Cosgrove, SE, Tamma, PD. Antibiotic therapy for pseudomonas aeruginosa bloodstream infections: how long is long enough?. Clin Infect Dis 2019;69:20112014.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Punjabi, C, Tien, V, Meng, L, Deresinski, S, Holubar, M. PO fluoroquinolone or trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole vs ß-lactams as step-down therapy for enterobacteriaceae bacteremia: systematic review and meta-analysis. Open Forum Infect Dis 2019;6:364.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sutton, JD, Stevens, VW, Chang, NN, Khader, K, Timbrook, TT, Spivak, ES. PO β-lactam antibiotics vs fluoroquinolones or trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole for definitive treatment of enterobacterales bacteremia from a urine source. JAMA Netw Open 2020;3:2020166.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mponponsuo, K, Brown, KA, Fridman, DJ, et al. Highly versus less bioavailable oral antibiotics in the treatment of gram-negative bloodstream infections: a propensity-matched cohort analysis. Clin Microbiol Infect 2023;29:490497.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kutob, LF, Justo, JA, Bookstaver, PB, Kohn, J, Albrecht, H, Al-Hasan, MN. Effectiveness of oral antibiotics for definitive therapy of Gram-negative bloodstream infections. Int J Antimicrob Agents 2016;48:498503.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Canzoneri, CN, Akhavan, BJ, Tosur, Z, Andrade, PEA, Aisenberg, GM. Follow-up blood cultures in gram-negative bacteremia: are they needed?. Clin Infect Dis 2017;65:17761779.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mitaka, H, Gomez, T, Lee, YI, Perlman, DC. Risk factors for positive follow-up blood cultures in gram-negative bacilli bacteremia: implications for selecting who needs follow-up blood cultures. Open Forum Infect Dis 2020;7:110.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wiggers, JB, Xiong, W, Daneman, N. Sending repeat cultures: is there a role in the management of bacteremic episodes? (SCRIBE study). BMC Infect Dis 2016;16:286.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maskarinec, SA, Park, LP, Ruffin, F, et al. Positive follow-up blood cultures identify high mortality risk among patients with Gram-negative bacteraemia. Clin Microbiol Infect 2020;26:904910.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
French, G, Hulse, M, Nguyen, D, et al. Impact of hospital strain on excess deaths during the COVID-19 pandemic-United States, July 2020–July 2021. Am J Transplant 2022;22:654657.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Arogyaswamy, S, Vukovic, N, Keniston, A, et al. The impact of hospital capacity strain: a qualitative analysis of experience and solutions at 13 academic medical centers. J Gen Intern Med 2022;37:14631474.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Neupane, M, De Jonge, N, Angelo, S, et al. Measures and impact of caseload surge during the COVID-19 pandemic: a systematic review. Crit Care Med 2024;52:10971112.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jenkins, TC, Knepper, BC, Sabel, AL, et al. Decreased antibiotic utilization after implementation of a guideline for inpatient cellulitis and cutaneous abscess. Arch Intern Med 2011;171:10721079.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Frost, HM, Lou, Y, Keith, A, Byars, A, Jenkins, TC. Increasing guideline-concordant durations of antibiotic therapy for acute Otitis media. J Pediatr 2022;240:221227.e9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Avdic, E, Cushinotto, LA, Hughes, AH, et al. Impact of an antimicrobial stewardship intervention on shortening the duration of therapy for community-acquired pneumonia. Clin Infect Dis 2012;54:15811587.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Haas, MK, Dalton, K, Knepper, BC, et al. Effects of a syndrome-specific antibiotic stewardship intervention for inpatient community-acquired pneumonia. Open Forum Infect Dis 2016;3:186.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mai, HTT, Espinoza, JL. The impact of COVID-19 pandemic on ESBL-producing enterobacterales infections: a scoping review. Antibiot (Basel) 2023;12:1064.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Weinstein, MP. Blood culture contamination: persisting problems and partial progress. J Clin Microbiol 2003;41:22752278.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Doern, GV, Carroll, KC, Diekema, DJ, et al. Practical guidance for clinical microbiology laboratories: a comprehensive update on the problem of blood culture contamination and a discussion of methods for addressing the problem. Clin Microbiol Rev 2019;33:0000919.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Alahmadi, YM, Aldeyab, MA, McElnay, JC, et al. Clinical and economic impact of contaminated blood cultures within the hospital setting. J Hosp Infect 2011;77:233236.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
van der Heijden, YF, Miller, G, Wright, PW, Shepherd, BE, Daniels, TL, Talbot, TR. Clinical impact of blood cultures contaminated with coagulase-negative staphylococci at an academic medical center. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2011;32:623625.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dempsey, C, Skoglund, E, Muldrew, KL, Garey, KW. Economic health care costs of blood culture contamination: a systematic review. Am J Infect Control 2019;47:963967.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Erickson, RM, Tritle, BJ, Spivak, ES, Timbrook, TT. Impact of an antimicrobial stewardship bundle for uncomplicated gram-negative bacteremia. Open Forum Infect Dis 2019;6:490.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Figure 0

Table 1. Comparison of baseline characteristics of included patients and their gram-negative bloodstream infections between cohorts

Figure 1

Figure 1. Interrupted time-series analysis of median duration of antibiotic therapy between pre-intervention and post-intervention periods.

Figure 2

Table 2. Comparison of aggregate primary and secondary outcomes between cohorts