What type of study is this?

This is a Cross-Sectional Study study.

January 14, 2026Open Forum Infectious Diseases0 citationsOpen Access

P-1141. Prevalence of Coagulase-negative Staphylococcus Bloodstream Infections According to Blood Culture Collection

BABeatriz Arns FBFlávia Roberta BrustPartners In Health DSDaniel SganzerlaFundmed Pesquisa, Ensino e Inovacao

Key Points

This research aims to determine how prevalence estimates of coagulase-negative Staphylococcus bloodstream infections differ based on the number of blood culture sets used.
Conducted a retrospective, cross-sectional study at a tertiary hospital in Brazil.
Reviewed coagulase-negative Staphylococcus-positive blood cultures collected from June 2020 to December 2022.
Included adult patients with two or more blood culture sets, with at least one positive for CoNS.
Evaluated simulated single-blood culture groups for prevalence rates.
Of 986 episodes, 119 (12%) had two or more positive blood cultures for CoNS.
Of these, 102 (10%) met bloodstream infection criteria.
In simulated single-BC groups, 44-46% had one positive BC for CoNS, and 37-39% met prevalence criteria.
Prevalence ratios of 3.6-3.8 were found across groups.

Abstract

Abstract Background Differentiating bloodstream infections (BSI) from commensal contamination remains challenging. For coagulase-negative Staphylococcus (CoNS), confirming BSI typically requires multiple blood culture (BC) sets, which is often not feasible in low- and middle-income countries. This study assessed how CoNS BSI prevalence estimates differ when using only one BC set versus two or more BC sets with commonly documented signs/symptoms of infection. Methods We conducted a retrospective, cross-sectional study at a tertiary hospital in Brazil, reviewing CoNS-positive BCs collected from Jun 2020 to Dec 2022. Adult patients (≥18 years old) with two or more BC sets collected within 24 hours and at least one positive for CoNS were included. A reference group was defined by two or more CoNS positive BCs plus signs/symptoms (documented fever, chills or hypotension). Four simulated single-BC groups were created: Group A (central line sets), Group B (peripheral sets), and Groups C and D (random samples from the full dataset)(Figure 1). In simulated groups, we applied the Global Action in Healthcare Network (GAIHN) “BSI-B” definition (one CoNS positive BC plus documented signs/symptoms). We calculated relative frequencies and 95% confidence intervals. Results Of a total of 986 episodes, 119 (12%) had two or more positive BCs for CoNS. Of these, 102 (10%) met BSI criteria. In simulated single-BC groups, 44-46% had one positive BC for CoNS, and 37-39% met “BSI-B” criteria, yielding prevalence ratios of 3.6-3.8 (Figure 2). These findings were consistent across groups, regardless of BC collection site. Conclusion In settings where only one BC can be collected, using definitions that rely on a single positive CoNS BC plus symptoms may overestimate BSI prevalence by more than threefold. Conversely, requiring two positive BC may underestimate the true burden when multiple sets are not feasible. Pragmatic readily available criteria are needed to help distinguish true CoNS BSI from contamination in single-BC scenarios, especially in low-resource settings. Disclosures All Authors: No reported disclosures

Ask AI

Helpful

Bookmark

View Full Paper