Impact of inadequate empirical therapy on the mortality of patients with bloodstream infections: a propensity score-based analysis.

The impact of the adequacy of empirical therapy on outcome for patients with bloodstream infections (BSI) is key for determining whether adequate empirical coverage should be prioritized over other, more conservative approaches. Recent systematic reviews outlined the need for new studies in the field, using improved methodologies. We assessed the impact of inadequate empirical treatment on the mortality of patients with BSI in the present-day context, incorporating recent methodological recommendations. A prospective multicenter cohort including all BSI episodes in adult patients was performed in 15 hospitals in Andalucía, Spain, over a 2-month period in 2006 to 2007. The main outcome variables were 14- and 30-day mortality. Adjusted analyses were performed by multivariate analysis and propensity score-based matching. Eight hundred one episodes were included. Inadequate empirical therapy was administered in 199 (24.8%) episodes; mortality at days 14 and 30 was 18.55% and 22.6%, respectively. After controlling for age, Charlson index, Pitt score, neutropenia, source, etiology, and presentation with severe sepsis or shock, inadequate empirical treatment was associated with increased mortality at days 14 and 30 (odds ratios [ORs], 2.12 and 1.56; 95% confidence intervals [95% CI], 1.34 to 3.34 and 1.01 to 2.40, respectively). The adjusted ORs after a propensity score-based matched analysis were 3.03 and 1.70 (95% CI, 1.60 to 5.74 and 0.98 to 2.98, respectively). In conclusion, inadequate empirical therapy is independently associated with increased mortality in patients with BSI. Programs to improve the quality of empirical therapy in patients with suspicion of BSI and optimization of definitive therapy should be implemented.

Análisis del modelo salutogénico en España: aplicación en salud pública e implicaciones para el modelo de activos en salud

This article seeks to provide an in depth review about one of the most revolutionary and influential methods used in understanding the variables and processes that explain human health. Based on a new vision in the analysis of the consequences of theNazi Holocaust, a doctor-sociologist—Aaron Antonovsky— managed to influence medicine and behavioral science by facilitating the keys for the optimal development of public health today. Despite the fact that this theory began appearing in the1970s in the 20th century, its real development and expansion have been seen in recent years. In fact, in Spain, there is littlescientific literature that analyses the theoretic keys of the model in depth. This work seek to cover this gap; to achieve this objective, it first presents how the construct of salutogenesis arose, the social-cultural context that promoted it, as well as the importance public health acquires today. This is the aim of this work, which analyses the theoretical bases of the salutogenesis model,with specific emphasis on its background and precursors, aswell as its inception, development and current expansion