RESUMEN
OBJECTIVES: The empirical treatment of infective endocarditis is still debated. The aim of this study was to compare the impact of empirical treatment with antistaphylococcal penicillin (ASP) or cefazolin vs. other treatments in methicillin-susceptible Staphylococcus aureus (MSSA) endocarditis. METHODS: A post hoc analysis of a prospective cohort study of patients hospitalized in a French reference centre with MSSA endocarditis was conducted between 2013 and 2022. The primary outcome was the duration of bacteraemia under treatment. RESULTS: Of the 208 patients included, 101 patients (48.6%) were classified in the reference group (ASP or cefazolin) and 107 (52.4%) in the non-reference group. Empirical treatment with ASP/cefazolin was associated with a shorter duration of bacteraemia compared to other treatments (3.6 d vs. 4.6 d, P = 0.01). This difference was not corrected by the addition of an aminoglycoside (3.6 d vs. 4.7 d, P < 0.01). In multivariate analysis, empirical treatment with ASP/cefazolin was associated with a duration of bacteraemia ≤72 h (P = 0.02), whereas endocarditis on native valves (P = 0.01), and intracardiac abscess were associated with longer duration of bacteraemia (P = 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Empirical treatment of endocarditis with ASP or Cefazolin is more effective than other treatments in MSSA endocarditis, even when the other treatments are combined with aminoglycosides.
Asunto(s)
Bacteriemia , Endocarditis Bacteriana , Endocarditis , Infecciones Estafilocócicas , Humanos , Cefazolina/uso terapéutico , Meticilina/farmacología , Meticilina/uso terapéutico , Estudios Prospectivos , Staphylococcus aureus , Estudios de Cohortes , Infecciones Estafilocócicas/tratamiento farmacológico , Antibacterianos/uso terapéutico , Endocarditis Bacteriana/tratamiento farmacológico , Endocarditis/tratamiento farmacológico , Bacteriemia/tratamiento farmacológicoRESUMEN
OBJECTIVES: Current guidelines recommend cefazolin as an alternative to antistaphylococcal penicillins (ASPs) in methicillin-susceptible Staphylococcus aureus (MSSA) infective endocarditis despite the lack of comparative study. The objective of this study was to evaluate the comparative outcomes of cefazolin vs. ASPs in MSSA infective endocarditis. METHODS: This was a retrospective analysis of an observational multicentre cohort study using prospectively collected data from patients with MSSA endocarditis confirmed by endocarditis team and treated either with cefazolin or ASPs between July 2013 and December 2018. Patients were excluded if they received both treatments. The primary outcome was 90-day all-cause mortality. RESULTS: Of 210 patients included, 53 patients (25.2%) received cefazolin and 157 (74.8%) received ASPs. The overall 90-day mortality rate was 27.6% (58/210 patients), 24.5% (13/53) in the cefazolin group vs. 28.7% (45/157) in the ASP group (p 0.561). Premature antimicrobial discontinuation due to adverse events occurred less frequently with cefazolin than with ASPs (0/53 vs. 13/157 patients; p 0.042). In multivariate analysis, there was no difference in 90-day mortality between cefazolin and ASPs (adjusted odds ratio (aOR), 1.2; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.49-2.91; p 0.681), while age (aOR, 1.06; 95% CI, 1.03-1.09; p < 0.001), Charlson comorbidity index (aOR, 1.18; 95% CI, 1.02-1.36 p 0.023), cerebral embolism (aOR, 2.83; 95% CI, 1.33-6.14; p 0.007) and intensive care unit admission (aOR, 4.16; 95% CI, 1.89-9.59; p 0.001) were factors significantly associated with higher mortality. CONCLUSIONS: Cefazolin seems to be a possible alternative to ASPs in MSSA endocarditis. More studies are needed to confirm these results and determine which treatment should be recommended as first-line therapy.