Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35854988›Full record

ArticleOpen forum infectious diseases2022

Bloodstream Infections in Hematologic Malignancy Patients With Fever and Neutropenia: Are Empirical Antibiotic Therapies in the United States Still Effective?

Andrea J Zimmer, Erica Stohs, Jane Meza, Christopher Arnold, John W Baddley, Pranatharthi Chandrasekar, Zeinab El Boghdadly, Carlos A Gomez, Eileen K Maziarz, Jose G Montoya and 11 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Open forum infectious diseases, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 23 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
23citing papers in PubMed
3.3field-weighted citation impact, top 6% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

23 citing papers in PubMed, 37 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Global epidemiology of carbapenem-resistantJAC-antimicrobial resistance · 2026
    Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Diagnostic Yield of Repeat Blood Cultures and Risk Factors for Bloodstream Infection in Persistent Febrile Neutropenia.Clinical infectious diseases : an official publication of the Infectious Diseases Society of America · 2026
    Article
  8. Observational
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Observational
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

21 authors at 15 institutions in 1 country.

Andrea J ZimmerUniversity of Nebraska College of Medicine, Omaha, Nebraska, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1460-0774
Erica StohsUniversity of Nebraska College of Medicine, Omaha, Nebraska, USA.
Jane MezaUniversity of Nebraska College of Public Health, Omaha, Nebraska, USA.
Christopher ArnoldUniversity of Virginia, Charlottesville, Virginia, USA.
John W BaddleyUniversity of Maryland, Baltimore, Maryland, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9111-625X
Pranatharthi ChandrasekarWayne State University, Detroit, Michigan, USA.
Zeinab El BoghdadlyOhio State University Wexner Medical Center, Columbus, Ohio, USA.
Carlos A GomezUniversity of Utah School of Medicine, Salt Lake City, Utah, USA.
Eileen K MaziarzDuke University Medical Center, Durham, North Carolina, USA.
Jose G MontoyaThe Dr. Jack S. Remington Laboratory for Specialty Diagnostics at the Palo Alto Medical Foundation, Palo Alto, California, USA.
Steven PergamFred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, Washington, USA.
Kenneth V RolstonUniversity of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA.
Michael J SatlinWeill Cornell Medicine of Cornell University, New York, New York, USA.
Gowri SatyanarayanaVanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tennessee, USA.
Shmuel ShohamJohns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland, USA.
Lynne StrasfeldOregon Health & Science University, Portland, Oregon, USA.
Randy TaplitzCOH National Medical Center, Duarte, California, USA.
Thomas J WalshWeill Cornell Medicine of Cornell University, New York, New York, USA.
Jo-Anne H YoungUniversity of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA.
Yuning ZhangUniversity of Nebraska College of Medicine, Omaha, Nebraska, USA.
Alison G FreifeldUniversity of Nebraska College of Medicine, Omaha, Nebraska, USA.
University of Nebraska at Omaha · USCornell University · USCity Of Hope National Medical Center · USDuke Medical Center · USFred Hutch Cancer Center · USJohns Hopkins University · USOregon Health & Science University · USThe Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center · USThe University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center · USUniversity of Maryland, Baltimore · USUniversity of Minnesota · USUniversity of Utah · USUniversity of Virginia · USVanderbilt University Medical Center · USWayne State University · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Rising antimicrobial resistance rates may impact the efficacy of empirical antibiotic treatment for febrile neutropenia in high-risk cancer patients. Lacking contemporary data about the epidemiology, antibiotic resistance patterns, and clinical outcomes from bloodstream infections (BSIs) in US cancer patients, it is unclear if current guidelines remain relevant. Methods: In a cross-sectional study, 14 US cancer centers prospectively identified BSIs in high-risk febrile neutropenic (FN) patients, including those receiving chemotherapy for hematologic malignancies or hematopoietic stem cell transplantation. Results: Among 389 organisms causing BSI in 343 patients, there was an equal distribution of gram-negative (GN) and gram-positive (GP) bacteria, with variability across centers. Cefepime and piperacillin-tazobactam were the most commonly prescribed empirical antibiotics for FN, at 62% and 23%, respectively; a GP-directed agent was empirically included in nearly half of all FN episodes within the first 24 hours. Susceptibility to fluoroquinolones, cefepime, piperacillin-tazobactam, and carbapenems was 49%, 84%, 88%, and 96%, respectively, among GN isolates. Critical illness (CrI), defined as a new requirement for mechanical ventilation, vasopressor, or death within 30 days, occurred in 15% and did not correlate with fluoroquinolone prophylaxis, organism type, initial antibiotics, or adequacy of coverage. Only severity of illness at presentation, signified by a Pitt bacteremia score ≥2, predicted for critical illness within 30 days. Mortality was 4% by day 7 and 10% overall. Conclusions: In accordance with US guidelines, cefepime or piperacillin-tazobactam remain effective agents or empirical treatment for high-risk cancer patients with FN who are stable at presentation, maintaining high GN pathogen susceptibility and yielding excellent outcomes.

Indexed as

bacteremia following chemotherapybacteremia in cancer patientsbloodstream infectionsempirical antibioticsfebrile neutropenia

Identifiers

PMID35854988
PMCPMC9277632
OpenAlexW4280520857

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.