Table 3.

Differences regarding catecholamine administration, requirement for automated ventilation, and fatal outcome for patients with enterococcal bacteremia vs. patients with S. aureus or E. coli. The results were confirmed by a forward modeled logistic regression model

	No catecholamines*	Catecholamines*	Odds ratio	95% Confidence interval	P
Enterococcal bacteremia	107	96	3.0	2.1–4.2	<0.0001
Nonenterococcal bacteremia	397	119	Ref.
	No catecholamines*	Catecholamines*	Odds ratio	95% Confidence interval	p
Enterococcal bacteremia (other than	7	2	0.9	0.2–4.6	0.95
E. faecalis or E. faecium)
Bacteremia due to E. faecalis	54	31	1.9	1.2–3.1	0.01
Bacteremia due to E. faecium	46	63	4.6	3.0–7.0	<0.0001
Nonenterococcal bacteremia	397	119	Ref.
	No automated ventilation**	Automated ventilation**	Odds ratio	95%) Confidence interval	P
Enterococcal bacteremia	114	90	4.2	2. 9–6.0	<0.0001
Nonenterococcal bacteremia	434	82
	No automated ventilation**	Automated ventilation** ‘	Odds ratio	95%o Confidence interval	p
Enterococcal bacteremia (other than	8	1	0.7	0.1–5.4	0.7
E. faecalis or E. faecium)
Bacteremia due to E. faecalis	58	27	2.5	1.5–4.1	0.0006
Bacteremia due to E. faecium	48	62	6.8	4.4–10.7	<0.0001
Nonenterococcal bacteremia	434	82	Ref.
	Survival†	Fatal outcome†	Odds ratio	95%o Confidence interval	P
Enterococcal bacteremia (other than	159	49	1.3	0.9–1.9	0.2
E. faecalis or E. faecium)
Nonenterococcal bacteremia	422	101
	Survival†	Fatal outcome†	Odds ratio	95% Confidence interval	P
Enterococcal bacteremia (other than	7	2	1.2	0.2–5.8	0.8
E. faecalis or E. faecium)
Bacteremia due to E. faecalis	67	19	1.1	0.7–2.1	0.55
Bacteremia due to E. faecium	85	28	1.4	0.8–2.2	0.2
Nonenterococcal bacteremia	422	101	Ref.

*, **, † Incomplete information for 21%, 23%o, and 22%o of data sets, respectively