ArticleBMC infectious diseases2024
Clinical outcome of ampicillin or ampicillin/sulbactam versus glycopeptides in ampicillin-susceptible Enterococcus faecalis/faecium bacteremia: a 10-year retrospective cohort study.
Article in BMC infectious diseases, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Clinical Outcomes of Penicillin-Based Therapy Compared to Alternative Enterococcal Treatment in Patients With Vancomycin-Susceptible Enterococcal Bloodstream Infections: A Monocentric Cohort Study.Transboundary and emerging diseases · 2026Article
- Optimizing Vancomycin Area under the Concentration-Time Curve Targets in Enterococcal Bacteremia: Balancing Efficacy and Nephrotoxicity.Yonsei medical journal · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundGlycopeptides for ampicillin-susceptible Enterococcus faecalis/faecium bacteremia are readily prescribed depending on the severity of the condition. However, there is limited data on the outcomes of glycopeptide use compared to ampicillin-containing regimens for ampicillin-susceptible E. faecalis/faecium bacteremia. From an antibiotic stewardship perspective, it is important to determine whether the use of glycopeptides is associated with improved clinical outcomes in patients with ampicillin-susceptible E. faecalis/faecium bacteremia.
methodsThis retrospective cohort study was conducted at a university-affiliated hospital between January 2010 and September 2019. We collected data from patients with positive blood cultures for Enterococcus species isolates. The clinical data of patients who received ampicillin-containing regimens or glycopeptides as definitive therapy for ampicillin-susceptible E. faecalis/faecium bacteremia were reviewed. Multivariate logistic regression analysis was performed to identify risk factors for 28-day mortality.
resultsAmpicillin-susceptible E. faecalis/faecium accounted for 41.2% (557/1,353) of enterococcal bacteremia cases during the study period. A total of 127 patients who received ampicillin-containing regimens (N = 56) or glycopeptides (N = 71) as definitive therapy were included in the analysis. The 28-day mortality rate was higher in patients treated with glycopeptides (19.7%) than in those treated with ampicillin-containing regimens (3.6%) (p = 0.006). However, in the multivariate model, antibiotic choice was not an independent predictor of 28-day mortality (adjusted OR, 3.7; 95% CI, 0.6-23.6).
conclusionsGlycopeptide use was not associated with improved mortality in patients with ampicillin-susceptible E. faecalis/faecium bacteremia. This study provides insights to reduce the inappropriate use of glycopeptides in ampicillin-susceptible E. faecalis/faecium bacteremia treatment and promote antimicrobial stewardship.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.