Viscoli C, Bruzzi P, Castagnola E, Boni L, Calandra T, Gaya H, Meunier F, Feld R, Zinner S, Klastersky J
National Institute for Cancer Research, Genova.
Eur J Cancer. 1994;30A(4):430-7. doi: 10.1016/0959-8049(94)90412-x.
The objective of this investigation was to determine factors predictive of bacteraemia at presentation in febrile, granulocytopenic cancer patients in order to estimate the probability of bacteraemia in each patient, and to compare factors associated with a diagnosis of gram-positive or gram-negative bacteraemia. Retrospective analysis of two sets of data (derivation and validation sets) randomly obtained from a large prospective study was conducted in a multicentre study of febrile, granulocytopenic cancer patients admitted for empiric antibacterial therapy. Within the derivation set, prognostic factors (clinical and laboratory data) likely to be associated with a generic diagnosis of bacteraemia and with a specific diagnosis of gram-positive or gram-negative bacteraemia were analysed by means of three backward, stepwise, logistic regression analyses. The predictive probability of bacteraemia was calculated using the logistic equation. The discriminating ability of the model in predicting bacteraemia was evaluated in the derivation and validation sets using receiver-operating characteristic curves. The predictive probability of gram-positive or gram-negative bacteraemia was not calculated. In the derivation set, 157 of 558 episodes (28%) were microbiologically documented bacteraemias. Predicting factors were antifungal prophylaxis, duration of granulocytopenia before fever, platelet count, highest fever, shock and presence and location of initial signs of infection. The variables institution, antibacterial prophylaxis and underlying disease showed borderline associations with bacteraemia. Shock was associated with gram-negative bacteraemia, while signs of infection at catheter site were predictive of gram-positive bacteraemia. Quinolone prophylaxis was negatively associated with gram-negative bacteraemia. When tested in the validation set, the model was poorly predictive, although a small subgroup of episodes (representing only 16% of the total sample size) with low risk of bacteraemia was identified. Factors predictive of bacteraemia can be identified, with discrimination between gram-positive and gram-negative aetiology. Further studies are warranted in order to improve the discriminant ability of the model.
本研究的目的是确定发热性粒细胞减少症癌症患者就诊时菌血症的预测因素,以便估计每位患者发生菌血症的概率,并比较与革兰氏阳性或革兰氏阴性菌血症诊断相关的因素。在一项针对因经验性抗菌治疗而入院的发热性粒细胞减少症癌症患者的多中心研究中,对从一项大型前瞻性研究中随机获取的两组数据(推导集和验证集)进行了回顾性分析。在推导集中,通过三次向后逐步逻辑回归分析,分析了可能与菌血症的一般诊断以及革兰氏阳性或革兰氏阴性菌血症的特定诊断相关的预后因素(临床和实验室数据)。使用逻辑方程计算菌血症的预测概率。使用受试者操作特征曲线在推导集和验证集中评估该模型预测菌血症的判别能力。未计算革兰氏阳性或革兰氏阴性菌血症的预测概率。在推导集中,558次发作中有157次(28%)为微生物学记录证实菌血症。预测因素为抗真菌预防、发热前粒细胞减少持续时间、血小板计数、最高体温、休克以及感染初始体征的存在和部位。变量机构、抗菌预防和基础疾病与菌血症呈临界关联。休克与革兰氏阴性菌血症相关,而导管部位的感染体征可预测革兰氏阳性菌血症。喹诺酮预防与革兰氏阴性菌血症呈负相关。在验证集中进行测试时,该模型的预测效果不佳,尽管识别出了一小部分菌血症风险较低的发作亚组(仅占总样本量的16%)。可以识别菌血症的预测因素,并区分革兰氏阳性和革兰氏阴性病因。有必要进行进一步研究以提高该模型的判别能力。