Lower Success Rate of Debridement and Implant Retention in Late Acute versus Early Acute Periprosthetic Joint Infection Caused by Staphylococcus spp. Results from a Matched Cohort Study

Background Surgical debridement, antibiotics and implant retention (DAIR) is currently recommended by international guidelines for both early acute (postsurgical) and late acute (hematogenous) periprosthetic joint infections (PJIs). However, due to a different pathogenesis of infection, a different treatment strategy may be needed. Questions/purposes (1) Compared with early acute PJIs, are late acute PJIs associated with a higher risk of DAIR failure? (2) When stratified by microorganism, is the higher risk of failure in late acute PJI associated with Staphylocococcus aureus infection? (3) When analyzing patients with S. aureus infection, what factors are independently associated with DAIR failure? Methods In this multicenter observational study, early acute and late acute PJIs treated with DAIR were retrospectively evaluated and matched according to treating center, year of diagnosis, and infection-causing microorganism. If multiple matches were available, the early acute PJI diagnosed closest to the late acute PJI was selected. A total of 132 pairs were included. Treatment success was defined as a retained implant during follow-up without the need for antibiotic suppressive therapy. Results Late acute PJIs had a lower treatment success (46% [60 of 132]) compared with early acute PJIs (76% [100 of 132]), OR 3.9 [95% CI 2.3 to 6.6]; p <0.001), but the lower treatment success of late acute PJIs was only observed when caused by Staphylococcus spp (S. aureus: 34% versus 75%; p <0.001; coagulase-negative staphylococci: 46% versus 88%; p = 0.013, respectively). On multivariable analysis, late acute PJI was the only independent factor associated with an unsuccessful DAIR when caused by S. aureus (OR 4.52 [95% CI 1.79 to 11.41]; p <0.001). Conclusions Although DAIR seems to be a successful therapeutic strategy in the management of early acute PJI, its use in late acute PJI should be reconsidered when caused by Staphylococcus spp. Our results advocate the importance of isolating the causative microorganism before surgery

Is an isolated positive sonication fluid culture in revision arthroplasties clinically relevant?

Objectives: The aim of this study was to investigate the clinical relevance of an isolated positive sonication fluid culture (SFC) in patients who underwent revision surgery of a prosthetic joint. We hypothesized that cases with a positive SFC have a higher rate of infection during follow-up compared with controls with a negative SFC.Methods: This retrospective multicentre observational study was performed within the European Study Group of Implant-Associated Infections. All patients who underwent revision surgery of a prosthetic joint between 2013 and 2019 and had a minimum follow-up of 1 year were included. Patients with positive tissue cultures or synovial fluid cultures were excluded from the study.Results: A total of 95 cases (positive SFC) and 201 controls (negative SFC) were included. Infection during follow-up occurred in 12 of 95 cases (12.6%) versus 14 of 201 controls (7.0%) (p = 0.125). In all, 79.8% of cases were with treated with antibiotics (76/95). Of the non-treated cases, 89% (17/19) had a positive SFC with a low virulent microorganism. When solely analysing patients who were not treated with antibiotics, 16% of the cases (3/19) had an infection during follow-up versus 5% of the controls (9/173) (p = 0.08).Discussion: Although not statistically significant, infections were almost twice as frequent in patients with an isolated positive SFC. These findings require further exploration in larger trials and to conclude about the potential benefit of antibiotic treatment in these cases.</p

Is an isolated positive sonication fluid culture in revision arthroplasties clinically relevant?

Objectives: The aim of this study was to investigate the clinical relevance of an isolated positive sonication fluid culture (SFC) in patients who underwent revision surgery of a prosthetic joint. We hypothesized that cases with a positive SFC have a higher rate of infection during follow-up compared with controls with a negative SFC.Methods: This retrospective multicentre observational study was performed within the European Study Group of Implant-Associated Infections. All patients who underwent revision surgery of a prosthetic joint between 2013 and 2019 and had a minimum follow-up of 1 year were included. Patients with positive tissue cultures or synovial fluid cultures were excluded from the study.Results: A total of 95 cases (positive SFC) and 201 controls (negative SFC) were included. Infection during follow-up occurred in 12 of 95 cases (12.6%) versus 14 of 201 controls (7.0%) (p = 0.125). In all, 79.8% of cases were with treated with antibiotics (76/95). Of the non-treated cases, 89% (17/19) had a positive SFC with a low virulent microorganism. When solely analysing patients who were not treated with antibiotics, 16% of the cases (3/19) had an infection during follow-up versus 5% of the controls (9/173) (p = 0.08).Discussion: Although not statistically significant, infections were almost twice as frequent in patients with an isolated positive SFC. These findings require further exploration in larger trials and to conclude about the potential benefit of antibiotic treatment in these cases.</p

Is an isolated positive sonication fluid culture in revision arthroplasties clinically relevant?

Objectives: The aim of this study was to investigate the clinical relevance of an isolated positive sonication fluid culture (SFC) in patients who underwent revision surgery of a prosthetic joint. We hypothesized that cases with a positive SFC have a higher rate of infection during follow-up compared with controls with a negative SFC.Methods: This retrospective multicentre observational study was performed within the European Study Group of Implant-Associated Infections. All patients who underwent revision surgery of a prosthetic joint between 2013 and 2019 and had a minimum follow-up of 1 year were included. Patients with positive tissue cultures or synovial fluid cultures were excluded from the study.Results: A total of 95 cases (positive SFC) and 201 controls (negative SFC) were included. Infection during follow-up occurred in 12 of 95 cases (12.6%) versus 14 of 201 controls (7.0%) (p = 0.125). In all, 79.8% of cases were with treated with antibiotics (76/95). Of the non-treated cases, 89% (17/19) had a positive SFC with a low virulent microorganism. When solely analysing patients who were not treated with antibiotics, 16% of the cases (3/19) had an infection during follow-up versus 5% of the controls (9/173) (p = 0.08).Discussion: Although not statistically significant, infections were almost twice as frequent in patients with an isolated positive SFC. These findings require further exploration in larger trials and to conclude about the potential benefit of antibiotic treatment in these cases.</p

Is an isolated positive sonication fluid culture in revision arthroplasties clinically relevant?

Objectives: The aim of this study was to investigate the clinical relevance of an isolated positive sonication fluid culture (SFC) in patients who underwent revision surgery of a prosthetic joint. We hypothesized that cases with a positive SFC have a higher rate of infection during follow-up compared with controls with a negative SFC.Methods: This retrospective multicentre observational study was performed within the European Study Group of Implant-Associated Infections. All patients who underwent revision surgery of a prosthetic joint between 2013 and 2019 and had a minimum follow-up of 1 year were included. Patients with positive tissue cultures or synovial fluid cultures were excluded from the study.Results: A total of 95 cases (positive SFC) and 201 controls (negative SFC) were included. Infection during follow-up occurred in 12 of 95 cases (12.6%) versus 14 of 201 controls (7.0%) (p = 0.125). In all, 79.8% of cases were with treated with antibiotics (76/95). Of the non-treated cases, 89% (17/19) had a positive SFC with a low virulent microorganism. When solely analysing patients who were not treated with antibiotics, 16% of the cases (3/19) had an infection during follow-up versus 5% of the controls (9/173) (p = 0.08).Discussion: Although not statistically significant, infections were almost twice as frequent in patients with an isolated positive SFC. These findings require further exploration in larger trials and to conclude about the potential benefit of antibiotic treatment in these cases.</p

Is an isolated positive sonication fluid culture in revision arthroplasties clinically relevant?

Objectives: The aim of this study was to investigate the clinical relevance of an isolated positive sonication fluid culture (SFC) in patients who underwent revision surgery of a prosthetic joint. We hypothesized that cases with a positive SFC have a higher rate of infection during follow-up compared with controls with a negative SFC.Methods: This retrospective multicentre observational study was performed within the European Study Group of Implant-Associated Infections. All patients who underwent revision surgery of a prosthetic joint between 2013 and 2019 and had a minimum follow-up of 1 year were included. Patients with positive tissue cultures or synovial fluid cultures were excluded from the study.Results: A total of 95 cases (positive SFC) and 201 controls (negative SFC) were included. Infection during follow-up occurred in 12 of 95 cases (12.6%) versus 14 of 201 controls (7.0%) (p = 0.125). In all, 79.8% of cases were with treated with antibiotics (76/95). Of the non-treated cases, 89% (17/19) had a positive SFC with a low virulent microorganism. When solely analysing patients who were not treated with antibiotics, 16% of the cases (3/19) had an infection during follow-up versus 5% of the controls (9/173) (p = 0.08).Discussion: Although not statistically significant, infections were almost twice as frequent in patients with an isolated positive SFC. These findings require further exploration in larger trials and to conclude about the potential benefit of antibiotic treatment in these cases.</p

Should We Use Rifampicin in Periprosthetic Joint Infections Caused by Staphylococci When the Implant Has Been Exchanged? A Multicenter Observational Cohort Study

BACKGROUND: Previous studies demonstrated the efficacy of a rifampicin-based regimen in the treatment of acute staphylococcal periprosthetic joint infections (PJIs) treated with surgical debridement. However, evidence is lacking to support the use of rifampicin in cases where the implant is exchanged during revision. METHODS: We included all consecutive cases of staphylococcal PJIs treated from January 2013 to December 2018 with revision surgery in this international, retrospective, multicenter observational cohort study. PJI was defined according to the European Bone and Joint Infection Society diagnostic criteria. A relapse or reinfection during follow-up, the need for antibiotic suppressive therapy, the need for implant removal, and PJI-related death were defined as clinical failure. Cases without reimplantation or with follow-upexcluded. RESULTS: A total of 375 cases were included in the final analysis, including 124 1-stage exchanges (33.1%) and 251 2-stage exchanges (66.9%). Of those, 101 cases failed (26.9%). There was no statistically significant difference in failure of patients receiving rifampicin (22.5%, 42/187) and those not receiving rifampicin (31.4%, 59/188; CONCLUSIONS: Combination treatment with rifampicin increases treatment success in patients with chronic staphylococcal PJI treated with 2-stage exchange arthroplasty

Trends in the epidemiology of catheter-related bloodstream infections; towards a paradigm shift, Spain, 2007 to 2019

Altres ajuts: Departament de Salut. Generalitat de Catalunya ("Pla estratègic de recerca i innovació en salut (PERIS) 2019-2021"); Ministerio de Asuntos Económicos y Transformación Digital; Red Española de Investigación en Patología Infecciosa (REIPI).Background: Catheter-related bloodstream infections (CRBSI) are frequent healthcare-associated infections and an important cause of death. Aim: To analyse changes in CRBSI epidemiology observed by the Infection Control Catalan Programme (VINCat). Methods: A cohort study including all hospital-acquired CRBSI episodes diagnosed at 55 hospitals (2007-2019) in Catalonia, Spain, was prospectively conducted. CRBSI incidence rates were adjusted per 1,000patientdays. To assess the CRBSI rate trend per year, negative binomial models were used, with the number of events as the dependent variable, and the year as the main independent variable. From each model, the annual rate of CRBSI diagnosed per 1,000patientdays and the incidence rate ratio (IRR) with its 95% confidence intervals (CI) were reported. Results: During the study, 9,290 CRBSI episodes were diagnosed (mean annual incidence rate:0.20episodes/1,000patientdays). Patients' median age was 64.1years; 36.6% (3,403/9,290) were female. In total, 73.7% (n=6,845) of CRBSI occurred in non-intensive care unit (ICU) wards, 62.7% (n=5,822) were related to central venous catheter (CVC), 24.1% (n=2,236) to peripheral venous catheters (PVC) and 13.3% (n=1,232) to peripherally-inserted central venous catheters (PICVC). Incidence rate fell over the study period (IRR:0.94;95%CI:0.93-0.96), especially in the ICU (IRR:0.88;95%CI:0.87-0.89). As a whole, while episodes of CVC CRBSI fell significantly (IRR:0.88;95%CI:0.87-0.91), peripherally-inserted catheter CRBSI (PVC and PICVC) rose, especially in medical wards (IRR PICVC:1.08;95%CI:1.05-1.11; IRR PVC: 1.03; 95% 1.00-1.05). Conclusions: Over the study, CRBSIs associated with CVC and diagnosed in ICUs decreased while episodes in conventional wards involving peripherally-inserted catheters increased. Hospitals should implement preventive measures in conventional wards

Treatment with tocilizumab or corticosteroids for COVID-19 patients with hyperinflammatory state: a multicentre cohort study (SAM-COVID-19)

Objectives: The objective of this study was to estimate the association between tocilizumab or corticosteroids and the risk of intubation or death in patients with coronavirus disease 19 (COVID-19) with a hyperinflammatory state according to clinical and laboratory parameters. Methods: A cohort study was performed in 60 Spanish hospitals including 778 patients with COVID-19 and clinical and laboratory data indicative of a hyperinflammatory state. Treatment was mainly with tocilizumab, an intermediate-high dose of corticosteroids (IHDC), a pulse dose of corticosteroids (PDC), combination therapy, or no treatment. Primary outcome was intubation or death; follow-up was 21 days. Propensity score-adjusted estimations using Cox regression (logistic regression if needed) were calculated. Propensity scores were used as confounders, matching variables and for the inverse probability of treatment weights (IPTWs). Results: In all, 88, 117, 78 and 151 patients treated with tocilizumab, IHDC, PDC, and combination therapy, respectively, were compared with 344 untreated patients. The primary endpoint occurred in 10 (11.4%), 27 (23.1%), 12 (15.4%), 40 (25.6%) and 69 (21.1%), respectively. The IPTW-based hazard ratios (odds ratio for combination therapy) for the primary endpoint were 0.32 (95%CI 0.22-0.47; p < 0.001) for tocilizumab, 0.82 (0.71-1.30; p 0.82) for IHDC, 0.61 (0.43-0.86; p 0.006) for PDC, and 1.17 (0.86-1.58; p 0.30) for combination therapy. Other applications of the propensity score provided similar results, but were not significant for PDC. Tocilizumab was also associated with lower hazard of death alone in IPTW analysis (0.07; 0.02-0.17; p < 0.001). Conclusions: Tocilizumab might be useful in COVID-19 patients with a hyperinflammatory state and should be prioritized for randomized trials in this situatio