Open forum infectious diseases · 2021
Impact of Choice of Prophylaxis on the Microbiology of Cardiac Implantable Electronic Device Infections: Insights From the Prevention of Arrhythmia Device Infection Trial (PADIT).
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Longtin Yves, Gervais Philippe, Birnie David H, Wang Jia, Alings Marco, Philippon François, Parkash Ratika, Manlucu Jaimie, Angaran Paul, Rinne Claus, Coutu Benoit, Low R Aaron, Essebag Vidal, Morillo Carlos, Redfearn Damian, Toal Satish, Becker Giuliano, Degrâce Michel, Thibault Bernard, Crystal Eugene, Tung Stanley, LeMaitre John, Sultan Omar, Bennett Matthew, Bashir Jamil, Ayala-Paredes Felix, Rioux Leon, Hemels Martin E W, Bouwels Leon H R, Exner Derek V, Dorian Paul, Connolly Stuart J, Krahn Andrew D
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: The Prevention of Arrhythmia Device Infection Trial (PADIT) investigated whether intensification of perioperative prophylaxis could prevent cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED) infections. Compared with a single dose of cefazolin, the perioperative administration of cefazolin, vancomycin, bacitracin, and cephalexin did not significantly decrease the risk of infection. Our objective was to compare the microbiology of infections between study arms in PADIT.
METHODS: This was a post hoc analysis. Differences between study arms in the microbiology of infections were assessed at the level of individual patients and at the level of microorganisms using the Fisher exact test.
RESULTS: Overall, 209 microorganisms were reported from 177 patients. The most common microorganisms were coagulase-negative staphylococci (CoNS; 82/209 [39.2%]) and S. aureus (75/209 [35.9%]). There was a significantly lower proportion of CoNS in the incremental arm compared with the standard arm (30.1% vs 46.6%; P = .04). However, there was no significant difference between study arms in the frequency of recovery of other microorganisms. In terms of antimicrobial susceptibility, 26.5% of microorganisms were resistant to cefazolin. CoNS were more likely to be cefazolin-resistant in the incremental arm (52.2% vs 26.8%, respectively; P = .05). However, there was no difference between study arms in terms of infections in which the main pathogen was sensitive to cefazolin (77.8% vs 64.3%; P = .10) or vancomycin (90.8% vs 90.2%; P = .90).
CONCLUSIONS: Intensification of the prophylaxis led to significant changes in the microbiology of infections, despite the absence of a decrease in the overall risk of infections. These findings provide important insight on the physiopathology of CIED infections.
TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT01002911.
METHODS: This was a post hoc analysis. Differences between study arms in the microbiology of infections were assessed at the level of individual patients and at the level of microorganisms using the Fisher exact test.
RESULTS: Overall, 209 microorganisms were reported from 177 patients. The most common microorganisms were coagulase-negative staphylococci (CoNS; 82/209 [39.2%]) and S. aureus (75/209 [35.9%]). There was a significantly lower proportion of CoNS in the incremental arm compared with the standard arm (30.1% vs 46.6%; P = .04). However, there was no significant difference between study arms in the frequency of recovery of other microorganisms. In terms of antimicrobial susceptibility, 26.5% of microorganisms were resistant to cefazolin. CoNS were more likely to be cefazolin-resistant in the incremental arm (52.2% vs 26.8%, respectively; P = .05). However, there was no difference between study arms in terms of infections in which the main pathogen was sensitive to cefazolin (77.8% vs 64.3%; P = .10) or vancomycin (90.8% vs 90.2%; P = .90).
CONCLUSIONS: Intensification of the prophylaxis led to significant changes in the microbiology of infections, despite the absence of a decrease in the overall risk of infections. These findings provide important insight on the physiopathology of CIED infections.
TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT01002911.