Skip to main content
. 2024 Sep 10;6(5):dlae144. doi: 10.1093/jacamr/dlae144

Table 2.

Logistic regression model of patients with positive FUBC

Variable Comparison Reference group or mean (SD) Univariate logistic regression modelsa Multivariable penalized logistic regression modelb
OR (95% CI) P value Adjusted OR (95% CI) P value
MDR Yes (21%) No (79%) 2.62
(1.15–5.98)
0.0222
Time to appropriate antibiotics, h Any +1 h Mean = 8.07 1.01
(0.99–1.02)
0.2377 1.01
(0.99–1.02)
0.3084
Time index to FUBC, h Any +1 h Mean = 44.2 0.95
(0.93–0.98)
0.0016 0.97
(0.94–1.00)
0.0249
Non-lactose-fermenting bacteria Yes (27%) No (73%) 0.54
(0.23–1.31)
0.1727
Fever at time of FUBC Yes (28%) No (72%) 2.56
(1.20–5.49)
0.0155 2.08
(0.92–4.74)
0.0801
Vasopressor use at time of FUBC Yes (41%) No (59%) 2.86
(1.37–5.97)
0.0051
Immunocompromised Yes (25%) No (75%) 2.49
(1.14–5.46)
0.0227
Quick Pitt bacteraemia score Any +1 point Mean = 2.24 1.42
(1.01–2.00)
0.0447
Source control achieved before FUBC No/unknown (80%) Yes (20%) 32.37
(1.84–570.00)
0.0175 25.21
(1.49–426.39)
0.0253

aUnivariate models used traditional logistic regression except for source control, which required a penalized logistic regression model due to complete separation (i.e. no patient who achieved source control had a positive FUBC).

bAll listed variables were considered for the multivariable model using backward selection (enter if P < 0.20 and retained if P < 0.1) with the exception of both time from index to appropriate antibiotic scan and time from index to FUBC, which were included regardless. The penalized logistic approach was used for the multivariable model to accommodate source control.