Evaluates mortality factors in VREfm bloodstream infections, suggesting importance of appropriate therapy.
Background Vancomycin-resistant Enterococcus faecium (VREfm) bloodstream infection (BSI) remains associated with substantial mortality, and timely active therapy may be critical. We evaluated factors associated with 14-day mortality, focusing on anti-VRE therapy, and described contemporaneous molecular epidemiology and biofilm capacity. Methods We randomly selected 150 VREfm blood isolates (50/year) from a tertiary medical center in Northern Taiwan, 2021–2023. Resistance genes were detected by PCR; multilocus sequence typing (MLST) and biofilm assays were performed. The primary outcome was 14-day all-cause mortality, analysed primarily among patients who survived at least three days from BSI onset to mitigate immortal-time bias. Results ST17 predominated (58%), followed by ST78 (20%); all isolates carried vanA. Antimicrobial susceptibility did not differ between ST17 and non-ST17 isolates. ST17 demonstrated greater biofilm formation (median OD 550 0.79 vs 0.44; P <0.001), but neither ST17 status nor biofilm production was associated with 14-day mortality. In the primary outcome analysis (n=137), multivariable analysis showed mortality was independently associated with no anti-VRE therapy (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 10.44, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.07-101.86; P =0.04), higher Pitt bacteraemia score (aOR 1.27; P =0.003), autoimmune disease (aOR 21.90; P=0.02), and lower platelet count (aOR 0.92; P =0.003). Compared with no anti-VRE therapy, daptomycin (aOR 0.11, 95% CI 0.01-1.03; P =0.05) and linezolid (aOR 0.05, 95% CI 0.003-0.84; P =0.04) were associated with reduced mortality. Findings were consistent in the 150-patient sensitivity analysis. Conclusions Mortality in VREfm BSI was primarily associated with host factors, illness severity, and receipt of anti-VRE therapy. ST17 predominated and showed enhanced biofilm formation, but was not independently associated with mortality.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Hsu et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: