Background Intravenous to oral switch (IVOS) is considered safe in selected patients with bloodstream infection and provides operational advantages. Still, it is underused in many clinical settings. We evaluated IVOS patterns, associated factors and clinical outcomes in patients with bloodstream infection. Methods Secondary data from two prospective, multicenter cohort studies recruiting patients with bloodstream infection were analyzed. IVOS was assessed on day 3 and 7 after positive blood culture. Eligibility for IVOS was based on infectious focus, clinical safe switch criteria and antimicrobial susceptibility. Risk factors for non-IVOS were studied using multivariable logistic regression. Results Among 3824 patients, 2770 were included in secondary analysis, and 742 (19.4%) were eligible and evaluable for IVOS. By day 7, 240 patients (32.3%) underwent IVOS. Switch occurred on the day of discharge in 107 patients (44.6%), and one day before in 46 (19.2%). Most commonly used oral agents were ciprofloxacin (75 patients, 31.3%), sultamicillin (56, 23.3%), and cefuroxime axetil (27, 11.3%). Upon multivariable analysis, diabetes (OR=0.57 (0.38-0.88), p=0.010), chronic kidney disease (0.64 (0.41-0.99), p=0.048), Pitt bacteremia score ≥ 2 on day 3 (0.43 (0.19-0.97), p=0.042) and septic shock before day 7 (0.31 (0.11-0.87), p=0.027) were barriers to IVOS, while urogenital focus (2.22 (1.50-3.28), p<0.001) and two study centers were positively associated with IVOS. IVOS was associated with shorter length of stay (7 vs. 12 days, p<0.001) and lower 28-day mortality. Conclusions In clinically stable patients with bloodstream infection, IVOS was infrequently implemented. Barriers to IVOS should be addressed as part of antimicrobial stewardship programs.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Nikolai et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: