Table 5.
Comparative Efficacy for Cefepime vs Carbapenems for the Treatment of Enterobacter spp. Bacteremia With Both Crude and Propensity Score–Matched Subgroups
| Outcome and Analysis Specification | Proportion With Outcome Among Those Receiving Carbapenems | Proportion With Outcome Among Those Receiving Cefepime | Absolute Risk Difference | P Value |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Outcome: persistent bacteremia ≥1 d | ||||
| Single agent | ||||
| Crude analysis | 4/16 (25%) | 0/36 (0%) | 0.25 | .002 |
| Propensity score analysis | 2/8 (25%) | 0/9 (0%) | 0.25 | .11 |
| Combination therapy | ||||
| Crude analysis | 8/42 (19%) | 7/91 (8%) | 0.11 | .054 |
| Propensity score analysis | 4/26 (15%) | 3/28 (11%) | 0.04 | .61 |
| Outcome: in-hospital mortality | ||||
| Single agent | ||||
| Crude analysis | 5/19 (26%) | 7/42 (17%) | 0.10 | .38 |
| Propensity score analysis | 3/10 (30%) | 2/12 (17%) | 0.13 | .46 |
| Combination therapy | ||||
| Crude analysis | 15/55 (27%) | 18/117 (15%) | 0.12 | .07 |
| Propensity score analysis | 8/34 (24%) | 5/40 (13%) | 0.11 | .21 |