Mismatch Rate of Empirical Antimicrobial Treatment in Fracture-Related Infections.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the current standard of care regarding empirical antimicrobial therapy in fracture-related infections (FRIs). DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. SETTING: Level I Trauma Center. PATIENT SELECTION CRITERIA: Adult patients treated for FRI with surgical debridement and empirical antibiotics between September 1, 2014, and August 31, 2022. Patients were excluded if less than 5 tissue samples for culture were taken, culture results were negative, or there was an antibiotic-free window of less than 3 days before debridement. OUTCOME MEASURES AND COMPARISONS: FRI microbial etiology, antimicrobial resistance patterns (standardized antimicrobial panels were tested for each pathogen), the mismatch rate between empirical antimicrobial therapy and antibiotic resistance of causative microorganism(s), and mismatching risk factors. RESULTS: In total, 75 patients were included [79% (59/75) men, mean age 51 years]. The most prevalent microorganisms were Staphylococcus aureus (52%, 39/75) and Staphylococcus epidermidis (41%, 31/75). The most frequently used empirical antibiotic was clindamycin (59%, 44/75), followed by combinations of gram-positive and gram-negative covering antibiotics (15%, 11/75). The overall mismatch rate was 51% (38/75) [95% confidence interval (CI), 0.39-0.62] and did not differ between extremities [upper: 31% (4/13) (95% CI, 0.09-0.61), lower: 55% (33/60) (95% CI, 0.42-0.68, P = 0.11)]. Mismatching empirical therapy occurred mostly in infections caused by S. epidermidis and gram-negative bacteria. Combination therapy of vancomycin with ceftazidime produced the lowest theoretical mismatch rate (8%, 6/71). Polymicrobial infections were an independent risk factor for mismatching (OR: 8.38, 95% CI, 2.53-27.75, P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with FRI, a mismatching of empirical antibiotic therapy occurred in half of patients, mainly due to lack of coverage for S. epidermidis , gram-negative bacteria, and polymicrobial infections. Empirical therapy with vancomycin and ceftazidime produced the lowest theoretical mismatch rates. This study showed the need for the consideration of gram-negative coverage in addition to standard broad gram-positive coverage. Future studies should investigate the effect of the proposed empirical therapy on long-term outcomes. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Prognostic Level III. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Prolonged use of linezolid in bone and joint infections: a retrospective analysis of adverse effects.

OBJECTIVES: Antibiotic treatment for bone and joint infections generally lasts for 6 weeks or longer. Linezolid may be a good option for treating bone and joint infections, but there is an increased risk of potential serious adverse drug events (ADEs) when used for more than 28 days. The aim of this study was to obtain detailed information on the type and time to occurrence of the patient-reported ADEs, the dynamics of haematopoiesis over time, and the reasons for early discontinuation of linezolid when used for an intended maximum duration of 12 weeks. METHODS: This single-centre retrospective study was conducted at the Sint Maartenskliniek in The Netherlands. Patients were included if they were planned to use linezolid for more than 28 days. The main reason for discontinuation of linezolid, the ADE according to the Naranjo score, and the time to occurrence of ADEs were analysed. RESULTS: Among 78 patients, drug toxicity led to early discontinuation of linezolid in 11 (14%) patients before and nine (12%) after 28 days of therapy. The median treatment duration was 42 days. Gastrointestinal intolerance (42%) and malaise (32%) were the most common ADEs. In 75% of the cases the ADE occurred within 28 days of therapy. Sixty-seven patients were able to continue linezolid beyond 28 days, 87% of whom completed therapy as scheduled. Severe cytopenia, according to the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse events (CTCA), was observed in four patients and was reversible after discontinuation of linezolid. One patient suffered optic neuropathy related to linezolid use. CONCLUSIONS: Linezolid could be considered an alternative option to the current standard of IV glycopeptides for the treatment of bone and joint infection for up to 12 weeks. If patients pass the first 28 days of therapy, the likelihood of successful completion of therapy is high with a low risk of serious ADEs.

Debridement, Antibiotics and Implant Retention: A Systematic Review of Strategies for Treatment of Early Infections after Revision Total Knee Arthroplasty.

GOAL: The purpose of this review is to provide a systematic and comprehensive overview of the available literature on the treatment of an early prosthetic joint infection (PJI) after revision total knee arthroplasty (TKA) and provide treatment guidelines. METHODS: This systematic review was performed in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) guidelines. The search was conducted using the electronic databases of PubMed, Trip, Cochrane, Embase, LILACS and SciElo. After the inclusion of the relevant articles, we extracted the data and results to compose a treatment algorithm for early and acute PJI after revision TKA. RESULTS: After applying the in- and exclusion criteria, seven articles were included in this systematic review focusing on debridement, antibiotics and implant retention (DAIR) for PJI following revision TKA, of which one was prospective and six were retrospective. All studies were qualified as level IV evidence. CONCLUSIONS: The current literature suggests that DAIR is a valid treatment option for early infections after revision TKA with success rates of 50-70%. Repeat DAIR shows success rates of around 50%. Further research should be aimed at predicting successful (repeat/two-stage) DAIRs in larger study populations, antibiotic regimes and the cost effectiveness of a second DAIR after revision TKA.

Bacillus Calmette-Guérin vaccine to reduce healthcare worker absenteeism in COVID-19 pandemic, a randomized controlled trial.

OBJECTIVES: The COVID-19 pandemic increases healthcare worker (HCW) absenteeism. The bacillus Calmette-Guérin (BCG) vaccine may provide non-specific protection against respiratory infections through enhancement of trained immunity. We investigated the impact of BCG vaccination on HCW absenteeism during the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: HCWs exposed to COVID-19 patients in nine Dutch hospitals were randomized to BCG vaccine or placebo in a 1:1 ratio, and followed for one year using a mobile phone application. The primary endpoint was the self-reported number of days of unplanned absenteeism for any reason. Secondary endpoints included documented COVID-19, acute respiratory symptoms or fever. This was an investigator-funded study, registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT03987919). RESULTS: In March/April 2020, 1511 HCWs were enrolled. The median duration of follow-up was 357 person-days (interquartile range [IQR], 351 to 361). Unplanned absenteeism for any reason was observed in 2.8% of planned working days in the BCG group and 2.7% in the placebo group (adjusted relative risk 0.94; 95% credible interval, 0.78-1.15). Cumulative incidences of documented COVID-19 were 14.2% in the BCG and 15.2% in the placebo group (adjusted hazard ratio (aHR) 0.94; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.72-1.24). First episodes of self-reported acute respiratory symptoms or fever occurred in 490 (66.2%) and 443 (60.2%) participants, respectively (aHR: 1.13; 95% CI, 0.99-1.28). Thirty-one serious adverse events were reported (13 after BCG, 18 after placebo), none considered related to study medication. CONCLUSIONS: During the COVID-19 pandemic, BCG-vaccination of HCW exposed to COVID-19 patients did not reduce unplanned absenteeism nor documented COVID-19.

Debridement, antibiotics, and implant retention after revision arthroplasty : antibiotic mismatch, timing, and repeated DAIR associated with poor outcome.

AIMS: Debridement, antibiotics, and implant retention (DAIR) is a widely accepted form of surgical treatment for patients with an early periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) after primary arthroplasty. The outcome of DAIR after revision arthroplasty, however, has not been reported. The aim of this study was to report the success rate of DAIR after revision arthroplasty with a follow-up of two years. METHODS: This retrospective study, conducted at the Sint Maartenskliniek, Nijmegen, the Netherlands, included 88 patients who underwent DAIR within 90 days of revision total hip or total knee arthroplasty between 2012 and 2019. Details of the surgical procedures and PJI were collected. Univariate analysis and a subgroup analysis of the culture-positive group were performed. Kaplan-Meier survivorship curves were constructed. RESULTS: The overall success rate of DAIR, with respect to the retention of components and the cure of infection, was 68% after two years. DAIR performed with an interval of > 30 days after the index revision procedure (odds ratio (OR) 0.24 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.08 to 0.72); p = 0.008), a repeated DAIR within 90 days (OR 0.37 (95% CI 0.14 to 0.97); p = 0.040), and the use of an immunosuppressive agent (OR 0.13 (95% CI 0.02 to 0.67); p = 0.012) were associated with a significantly reduced success rate. In the culture-positive group, a mismatch between the antibiotic treatment and the susceptibility of the organism was associated with a significantly lower success rate (OR 0.13 (95% CI 0.03 to 0.62); p = 0.007). CONCLUSION: DAIR is an acceptable form of surgical treatment for patients with a suspected early PJI after revision arthroplasty of the hip or knee. DAIRs performed after a prolonged interval, multiple DAIRs, and antibiotic mismatches were significantly associated with an increased risk of failure. Optimization of the host immune response and the prevention of antibiotic mismatch are modifiable factors that may improve the outcome. The high rate of mismatches was an important finding, underlining the need for a review of the local microbiological data, which might improve the outcome. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2022;104-B(4):464-471.

Prior use of therapeutic anticoagulation does not protect against COVID-19 related clinical outcomes in hospitalized patients: A propensity score-matched cohort study.

The hypercoagulable state observed in COVID-19 could be responsible for morbidity and mortality. In this retrospective study we investigated whether therapeutic anticoagulation prior to infection has a beneficial effect in hospitalized COVID-19 patients. This study included 1154 COVID-19 patients admitted to 6 hospitals in the Netherlands between March and May 2020. We applied 1:3 propensity score matching to evaluate the association between prior therapeutic anticoagulation use and clinical outcome, with in hospital mortality as primary endpoint. In total, 190 (16%) patients used therapeutic anticoagulation prior to admission. In the propensity score matched analyses, we observed no associations between prior use of therapeutic anticoagulation and overall mortality (risk ratio 1.02 [95% confidence interval; 0.80-1.30]) or length of hospital stay (7.0 [4-12] vs. 7.0 [4-12] days, P = .69), although we observed a lower risk of pulmonary embolism (0.19 [0.05-0.80]). This study shows that prior use of therapeutic anticoagulation is not associated with improved clinical outcome in hospitalized COVID-19 patients.

Risk factors for in-hospital mortality in laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 patients in the Netherlands: A competing risk survival analysis.

BACKGROUND: To date, survival data on risk factors for COVID-19 mortality in western Europe is limited, and none of the published survival studies have used a competing risk approach. This study aims to identify risk factors for in-hospital mortality in COVID-19 patients in the Netherlands, considering recovery as a competing risk. METHODS: In this observational multicenter cohort study we included adults with PCR-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection that were admitted to one of five hospitals in the Netherlands (March to May 2020). We performed a competing risk survival analysis, presenting cause-specific hazard ratios (HRCS) for the effect of preselected factors on the absolute risk of death and recovery. RESULTS: 1,006 patients were included (63.9% male; median age 69 years, IQR: 58-77). Patients were hospitalized for a median duration of 6 days (IQR: 3-13); 243 (24.6%) of them died, 689 (69.9%) recovered, and 74 (7.4%) were censored. Patients with higher age (HRCS 1.10, 95% CI 1.08-1.12), immunocompromised state (HRCS 1.46, 95% CI 1.08-1.98), who used anticoagulants or antiplatelet medication (HRCS 1.38, 95% CI 1.01-1.88), with higher modified early warning score (MEWS) (HRCS 1.09, 95% CI 1.01-1.18), and higher blood LDH at time of admission (HRCS 6.68, 95% CI 1.95-22.8) had increased risk of death, whereas fever (HRCS 0.70, 95% CI 0.52-0.95) decreased risk of death. We found no increased mortality risk in male patients, high BMI or diabetes. CONCLUSION: Our competing risk survival analysis confirms specific risk factors for COVID-19 mortality in a the Netherlands, which can be used for prediction research, more intense in-hospital monitoring or prioritizing particular patients for new treatments or vaccination.

Clinical characteristics and outcomes of 952 hospitalized COVID-19 patients in The Netherlands: A retrospective cohort study.

OBJECTIVE: To describe clinical characteristics, disease course and outcomes in a large and well-documented cohort of hospitalized COVID-19 patients in the Netherlands. METHODS: We conducted a multicentre retrospective cohort study in The Netherlands including 952 of 1183 consecutively hospitalized patients that were admitted to participating hospitals between March 2nd, 2020, and May 22nd, 2020. Clinical characteristics and laboratory parameters upon admission and during hospitalization were collected until July 1st. RESULTS: The median age was 69 years (IQR 58-77 years) and 605 (63.6%) were male. Cardiovascular disease was present in 558 (58.6%) patients. The median time of onset of symptoms prior to hospitalization was 7 days (IQR 5-10). A non ICU admission policy was applicable in 312 (32.8%) patients and in 165 (56.3%) of the severely ill patients admitted to the ward. At admission and during hospitalization, severely ill patients had higher values of CRP, LDH, ferritin and D-dimer with higher neutrophil counts and lower lymphocyte counts. Overall in-hospital mortality was 25.1% and 183 (19.1%) patients were admitted to ICU, of whom 56 (30.6%) died. Patients aged ≥70 years had high mortality, both at the ward (52.4%) and ICU (47.4%). The median length of ICU stay was 8 days longer in patients aged ≥70 years compared to patients aged ≤60 years. CONCLUSION: Hospitalized COVID-19 patients aged ≥70 years had high mortality and longer ICU stay compared to patients aged ≤60 years. These findings in combination with the patient burden of an ICU admission and possible long term complications after discharge should encourage us to further investigate the benefit of ICU admission in elderly and fragile COVID-19-patients.

Dysregulated Innate and Adaptive Immune Responses Discriminate Disease Severity in COVID-19.

The clinical spectrum of COVID-19 varies and the differences in host response characterizing this variation have not been fully elucidated. COVID-19 disease severity correlates with an excessive proinflammatory immune response and profound lymphopenia. Inflammatory responses according to disease severity were explored by plasma cytokine measurements and proteomics analysis in 147 COVID-19 patients. Furthermore, peripheral blood mononuclear cell cytokine production assays and whole blood flow cytometry were performed. Results confirm a hyperinflammatory innate immune state, while highlighting hepatocyte growth factor and stem cell factor as potential biomarkers for disease severity. Clustering analysis revealed no specific inflammatory endotypes in COVID-19 patients. Functional assays revealed abrogated adaptive cytokine production (interferon-γ, interleukin-17, and interleukin-22) and prominent T-cell exhaustion in critically ill patients, whereas innate immune responses were intact or hyperresponsive. Collectively, this extensive analysis provides a comprehensive insight into the pathobiology of severe to critical COVID-19 and highlights potential biomarkers of disease severity.