4.3 Article

WHO NEEDS A BLOOD CULTURE? A PROSPECTIVELY DERIVED AND VALIDATED PREDICTION RULE

Journal

JOURNAL OF EMERGENCY MEDICINE
Volume 35, Issue 3, Pages 255-264

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.jemermed.2008.04.001

Keywords

blood cultures; bacteremia; decision rule; sepsis

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The study objective was to derive and validate a clinical decision rule for obtaining blood cultures in Emergency Department (ED) patients with suspected infection. This was a prospective, observational cohort study of consecutive adult ED patients with blood cultures obtained. The study rail from February 1, 2000 through February 1, 2001. Patients were randomly assigned to derivation (2/3) or validation (1/3) sets. The outcome was true bacteremia. Features of the history, co-morbid illness, physical examination, and laboratory testing were used to create a clinical decision rule. Among 3901 patients, 3730 (96%) were enrolled with 305 (8.2%) episodes of true bacteremia. A decision rule was created with major criteria defined as: temperature > 39.5 degrees C (103.0 degrees F), indwelling vascular catheter, or clinical suspicion of endocarditis. Minor criteria were: temperature 38.3-39.4 degrees C (101-102.9 degrees F), age > 65 years, chills, vomiting, hypotension (systolic blood pressure < 90 mm Hg), neutrophil% > 80, white blood cell count > 18 k, bands > 5%, platelets < 150 k, and creatinine > 2.0. A blood culture is indicated by the rule if at least one major criterion or two minor criteria are present. Otherwise, patients are classified as low risk and cultures may be omitted. Only 4 (0.6%) low-risk patients in the derivation set and 3 (0.9%) low-risk patients in the validation set had positive cultures. The sensitivity was 98% (95% confidence interval [CI] 96-100%) (derivation) and 97% (95% CI 94-100%) (validation). We developed and validated a promising clinical decision rule for predicting bacteremia in patients with suspected infection. (c) 2008 Elsevier Inc.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available