Management and outcome of spinal implant-associated surgical site infections in patients with posterior instrumentation: analysis of 176 cases.

PURPOSE: The management of implant-associated surgical site infections (SSI) in patients with posterior instrumentation is challenging. Evidence regarding the most appropriate treatment and the need for removal of implants is equivocal. We sought to evaluate the management and outcome of such patients at our institution. METHODS: We searched our prospectively documented databases for eligible patients with posterior spinal instrumentation, excluding the cervical spine (January 2008-June 2018). Patient files were reviewed, demographic data and treatment details were recorded. Patient-reported outcome (PRO) was assessed with the Core Outcome Measures Index (COMI) preoperatively and postoperatively at 3 and 12 months. RESULTS: A total of 170 patients underwent 210 revisions for 176 SSIs. Two-thirds presented within four weeks (105/176, 59.7%, median 22.5d, 7d-11.1y). The most common pathogens were Staphylococcus aureus (n = 79/210, 37.6%) and Staphylococcus epidermidis (n = 56/210, 26.7%). Debridement and implant retention was performed in 135/210 (64.3%) revisions and partial replacement in 62/210 (29.5%). In 28/176 SSI (15.9%), persistent infection required multiple revisions (≤ 4). Surgery was followed by intravenous and oral antimicrobial treatment (10-12w). In 139/176 SSIs (79%) with ≥ 1y follow-up, infection was cured in 115/139 (82.7%); relapse occurred in 9 (relapse rate: 5.1%). Two patients (1.4%) died. COMI decreased significantly (8.2 ± 1.5 vs. 4.8 ± 2.9, p < 0.0001) over 12 months. 72.7% of patients were (very) satisfied with their care. CONCLUSION: Patients with SSI after posterior (thoraco-)lumbo(-sacral) instrumentation can be successfully treated in most cases with surgical and specific antibiotic treatment. An interdisciplinary approach is recommended. Loose implants should be replaced. In some cases, multiple revisions may be necessary. Patient outcomes were satisfactory.

Open wounds and rifampicin therapy are associated with rifampicin resistance among staphylococcal vascular graft/endograft infections.

BACKGROUND: Optimal timing for rifampicin combination therapy in patients with staphylococcal vascular graft/endograft infection (S-VGEI) is unknown. Experts recommend adding rifampicin after lowering bacterial load by surgery and wound closure. OBJECTIVES: To assess predictors of rifampicin resistance among staphylococci isolated from patients in the Vascular Graft Infection Cohort Study. METHODS: We included prospective patients with S-VGEI diagnosis from 1 January 2002 to 30 June 2020. We retrospectively assessed determinants of rifampicin resistance using exact logistic regression and described survival with Kaplan-Meier curves. RESULTS: We analysed 513 Staphylococcus spp. among 143 predominantly male (82%) patients with a median age of 68 years (IQR 60-75). Thereof, 82 (57%) received a rifampicin combination therapy and 61 (43%) received an antimicrobial therapy without rifampicin. Among 82 patients with rifampicin, 26/26 patients with any rifampicin resistance had open wounds with a strong association of rifampicin resistance with rifampicin treatment while having open wounds (OR 37, 95% CI 6.1 to ∞). Among 75 patients with a rifampicin combination therapy and rifampicin-susceptible staphylococci at S-VGEI diagnosis, 12/12 patients with a secondary rifampicin-resistant isolate had an open wound (OR 14, 95% CI 2.1 to ∞). CONCLUSIONS: Rifampicin should be started after wound closure due to increased risk of rifampicin resistance observed while having open wounds or second-look surgeries among patients with S-VGEI.

Impact of unknown incidental findings in PET/CT examinations of patients with proven or suspected vascular graft or endograft infections.

Vascular graft or endograft Infections (VGEI) are rare but severe complications of vascular reconstructive surgery, and associated with significant mortality and morbidity risk. Positron emission tomography/computed tomography with 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose (PET/CT) has been shown to have a high diagnostic accuracy in the detection of VGEI. In this single-center prospective cohort study, we assessed the rate and the impact on patient management of relevant unknown incidental findings in PET/CT of patients with proven or suspected VGEI, and clinical follow-up of all patients was performed. Our study results show a comparably high rate of relevant unknown incidental findings (181 in 502 examinations), with documented direct impact on patient management in 80 of 181 (44%) of all findings. PET/CT scan- and patient-based evaluation revealed impact on patient management in 76 of 502 (17%) of all PET/CT scans, and in 59 of 162 (36%) of all patients, respectively. Furthermore, PET/CT correctly identified the final diagnosis in 20 of 36 (56%) patients without VGEI. In conclusion, in proven and suspected VGEI, PET/CT detects a high rate of relevant unknown incidental findings with high impact on patient management.

Diagnostic Accuracy of PET/CT and Contrast Enhanced CT in Patients With Suspected Infected Aortic Aneurysms.

OBJECTIVE: Infected aortic aneurysms are highly lethal, and management is very demanding, requiring an early diagnosis. The aim of this study was to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of positron emission tomography/computed tomography with 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose (PET/CT) and contrast enhanced CT (CE-CT) in patients with suspected infected aortic aneurysms. METHODS: PET/CT was performed in patients with clinically suspected infected aortic aneurysms, and additional CE-CT was performed if feasible. Diagnostic accuracy was assessed by two independent readers using a four point grading score for both imaging modalities. Maximum standardised uptake values (SUVmax) were calculated for quantitative measurements of metabolic activity in PET/CT. The reference standard was a combination of clinical presentation, laboratory findings, and imaging. RESULTS: Ten patients were included prospectively in the study, 24 retrospectively; 16 patients (47%) prior to the start of antimicrobial treatment and all 34 patients prior to any vascular intervention. Thirteen of the 34 patients had an infected aortic aneurysm (38%). Proven infected aortic aneurysms were all metabolically active on PET/CT with a median SUVmax of 6.6 (interquartile range 4.7-21.8). Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV), and accuracy of PET/CT for the diagnosis of infected aortic aneurysm was 100%, 71%, 68%, 100%, and 82%, for reader 1 and 85%, 71%, 65%, 88%, and 77%, for reader 2. Respective values for CE-CT, performed in 20 patients (59%), were 63%, 75%, 63%, 75%, and 70%, for reader 1 and 88%, 50%, 54%, 86%, and 65%, for reader 2. CONCLUSION: The diagnostic accuracy of PET/CT in the detection of infected aortic aneurysms (n = 13) is high, and higher than CE-CT. While PET/CT demonstrates an excellent sensitivity, its specificity is hampered because of false positive findings.

A Lead-In with Silibinin Prior to Triple-Therapy Translates into Favorable Treatment Outcomes in Difficult-To-Treat HIV/Hepatitis C Coinfected Patients.

BACKGROUND: The efficacy of first-generation protease inhibitor based triple-therapy against hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection is limited in HIV/HCV-coinfected patients with advanced liver fibrosis and non-response to previous peginterferon-ribavirin. These patients have a low chance of achieving a sustained virologic response (SVR) using first generation triple-therapy, with a success rate of only 20%. We investigated the efficacy and safety of lead-in therapy with intravenous silibinin followed by triple-therapy in this difficult-to-treat patient group. METHODOLOGY: Inclusion criteria were HIV/HCV coinfection with advanced liver fibrosis and documented previous treatment failure on peginterferon-ribavirin. The intervention was a lead-in therapy with intravenous silibinin 20 mg/kg/day for 14 days, followed by triple-therapy (peginterferon-ribavirin and telaprevir) for 12 weeks, and peginterferon-ribavirin alone for 36 weeks. Outcome measurements were HCV-RNA after silibinin lead-in and during triple-therapy, SVR data at week 12, and safety and tolerability of silibinin. RESULTS: We examined sixteen HIV/HCV-coinfected patients with previous peginterferon-ribavirin failure, of whom 14 had a fibrosis grade METAVIR ≥F3. All were on successful antiretroviral therapy. Median (IQR) HCV-RNA decline after silibinin therapy was 2.65 (2.1-2.8) log10 copies/mL. Fifteen of sixteen patients (94%) had undetectable HCV RNA at weeks 4 and 12, eleven patients (69%) showed end-of-treatment response (i.e., undetectable HCV-RNA at week 48), and ten patients (63%) reached SVR at week 12 (SVR 12). Six of the sixteen patients (37%) did not reach SVR 12: One patient had rapid virologic response (RVR) (i.e., undetectable HCV-RNA at week 4) but stopped treatment at week 8 due to major depression. Five patients had RVR, but experienced viral breakthroughs at week 21, 22, 25, or 32, or a relapse at week 52. The HIV RNA remained below the limit of detection in all patients during the complete treatment period. No serious adverse events and no significant drug-drug interactions were associated with silibinin. CONCLUSION: A lead-in with silibinin before triple-therapy was safe and highly effective in difficult-to-treat HIV/HCV coinfected patients, with a pronounced HCV-RNA decline during the lead-in phase, which translates into 63% SVR. An add-on of intravenous silibinin to standard of care HCV treatment is worth further exploration in selected difficult-to-treat patients. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01816490.