Association Between Infectious Diseases Consultation and Mortality in Hospitalized Patients With Gram-negative Bloodstream Infection: A Retrospective Population-wide Cohort Study.

Objectives: Data supporting routine infectious diseases (ID) consultation in gram-negative bloodstream infection (GN-BSI) are limited. We evaluated the association between ID consultation and mortality in patients with GN-BSI in a retrospective population-wide cohort study in Ontario using linked health administrative databases.
Methods: Hospitalized adult patients with GN-BSI between April 2017 and December 2021 were included. The primary outcome was time to all-cause mortality censored at 30 days, analyzed using a mixed effects Cox proportional hazards model with hospital as a random effect. ID consultation 1-10 days after the first positive blood culture was treated as a time-varying exposure.
Results: Of 30 159 patients with GN-BSI across 53 hospitals, 11 013 (36.5%) received ID consultation. Median prevalence of ID consultation for patients with GN-BSI across hospitals was 35.0% with wide variability (range 2.7%-76.1%, interquartile range 19.6%-41.1%). In total, 1041 (9.5%) patients who received ID consultation died within 30 days, compared to 1797 (9.4%) patients without ID consultation. In the fully adjusted multivariable model, ID consultation was associated with mortality benefit (adjusted hazard ratio [HR] 0.82, 95% confidence interval [CI] .77-.88, P < .0001; translating to absolute risk reduction of -3.8% or number needed to treat [NNT] of 27). Exploratory subgroup analyses of the primary outcome showed that ID consultation could have greater benefit in patients with high-risk features (nosocomial infection, polymicrobial or non-Enterobacterales infection, antimicrobial resistance, or non-urinary tract source).
Conclusions: Early ID consultation was associated with reduced mortality in patients with GN-BSI. If resources permit, routine ID consultation for this patient population should be considered to improve patient outcomes.
Competing Interests: Potential conflicts of interest . The authors: No reported conflicts of interest. All authors have submitted the ICMJE Form for Disclosure of Potential Conflicts of Interest. Conflicts that the editors consider relevant to the content of the manuscript have been disclosed.
(© The Author(s) 2024. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of Infectious Diseases Society of America.)