Background The purposes of this study were to determine the incidence of central and peripheral venous catheter-related bacteraemias, the relationship between the suspected and final confirmed bacteraemia origins, and the differences in microbiological, epidemiological, clinical, and analytical characteristics between the groups, including evolution to death. Methods This was a 7-year descriptive retrospective populational study of all bloodstream infections, comparing central (CB) and peripheral (PB) venous catheter-related bacteraemias in patients older than 15 years. Results In all, 285 catheter-related bacteraemia patients, 220 with CBs (77.19%) and 65 with PBs (22.81%), were analysed among 1866 cases with bloodstream infections. The cumulative incidence per 1000 patients-day of hospital stay was 0.36 for CB and 0.106 for PB. In terms of the suspected origin, there was less accuracy in diagnosing catheter-related bloodstream infections (68. 2%) than those of other origins (78. 4%), p <  0.001. The accuracy was greater for PB (75%) than for CB (66. 2%), Coagulase-negative staphylococci were the most frequent microorganisms in both groups but occurred 1.57 times more frequently in CB (64.1%/40.6%) (p = 0.004), while Staphylococcus aureus (23. 4%/9.5%) (p = 0.02) and Enterobacteriae species (15.6%/6. 3%) (p = 0.003) were 2.5 times more frequent in PB. The CB patients stayed at the hospital for an average of 7.44 days longer than did the PB patients; more CB patients had active neoplasia (70. 4%/32.8%), more had surgery in the previous week (29. 2%/8. 3%), and fewer received adequate empirical treatment (53.9%/ 62.5%). Catheter was not removed in 8. 2% of CB and 3.7% of PB. On the other hand, the CB and PB patients had similar Pitt scores at blood extraction (median 0.89 versus 0.84 points, respectively; p = 0.8) and similar survival rates at hospital discharge (91.1% versus 90. 2%; p = 0.81). Conclusions Central catheters were more frequent sources of bacteraemias than were peripheral catheters. There were important differences in the microbiological aetiology as well. PB patients received correct empirical antibiotic treatment more frequently and had a higher initial rate of correct determination of the suspected source of bacteraemia. Differences in the microbiological aetiology and empirical antibiotic treatment received, and probably catheter removal and time to catheter removal could explain why CB and PB patients had similar survival rates .

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‐19) infection in elderly patients is more aggressive and treatments have shown limited efficacy. Our objective is to describe the clinical course and to analyze the prognostic factors associated with a higher risk of mortality of a cohort of patients older than 80 years. In addition, we assess the efficacy of immunosuppressive treatments in this population. We analyzed the data from 163 patients older than 80 years admitted to our institution for COVID‐19, during March and April 2020. A Lasso regression model and subsequent multivariate Cox regression were performed to select variables predictive of death. We evaluated the efficacy of immunomodulatory therapy in three cohorts using adjusted survival analysis. The mortality rate was 43%. The mean age was 85.2 years. The disease was considered severe in 76.1% of the cases. Lasso regression and multivariate Cox regression indicated that factors correlated with hospital mortality were: age (hazard ratio [HR] 1.12, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.03–1.22), alcohol consumption (HR 3.15, 95% CI: 1.27–7.84), CRP > 10 mg/dL (HR 2.67, 95% CI: 1.36–5.24), and oxygen support with Venturi Mask (HR 6.37, 95% CI: 2.18–18.62) or reservoir (HR 7.87, 95% CI: 3.37–18.38). Previous treatment with antiplatelets was the only protective factor (HR 0.47, 95% CI: 0.23–0.96). In the adjusted treatment efficacy analysis, we found benefit in the combined use of tocilizumab (TCZ) and corticosteroids (CS) (HR 0.09, 95% CI: 0.01–0.74) compared to standard treatment, with no benefit of CS alone (HR 0.95, 95% CI: 0.53–1.71). Hospitalized elderly patients suffer from a severe and often fatal form of COVID‐19 disease. In this regard, several parameters might identify high‐risk patients upon admission. Combined use of TCZ and CS could improve survival.