Infections occurring in adult patients receiving mechanical circulatory support: the two-year experience of an Italian National Referral Tertiary Care Center.

OBJECTIVE: Infection during mechanical circulatory support is a frequent adverse complication. We analyzed infections occurring in this population in a national tertiary care center, and assessed the differences existing between the setting of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) and ventricular assist devices (VADs). DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: An observational study was made of patients treated with ECMO or VAD in the San Raffaele Scientific Institute (Italy) between 2009 and 2011. INTERVENTIONS: None. RESULTS: Thirty-nine percent of the 46 patients with ECMO and 69% of the 15 patients with VAD developed infection. We observed a mortality rate of 36.1% during mechanical circulatory support and of 55.7% during the global hospitalization period. Although Gram-negative infections were predominant overall, patients with ECMO were more prone to develop Candida infection (29%), and patients with VAD tended to suffer Staphylococcus infection (18%). Patients with infection had longer ECMO support (p=0.03), VAD support (p=0.01), stay in the intensive care unit (p=0.002), and hospital admission (p=0.03) than patients without infection. Infection (regression coefficient=3.99, 95% CI 0.93-7.05, p=0.02), body mass index (regression coefficient=0.46, 95% CI 0.09-0.83, p=0.02), fungal infection (regression coefficient=4.96, 95% CI 1.42-8.44, p=0.009) and obesity (regression coefficient=10.47, 95% CI 1.77-19.17, p=0.02) were predictors of the duration of ECMO support. Stepwise logistic regression analysis showed the SOFA score at the time of implant (OR=12.33, 95% CI 1.15-132.36, p=0.04) and VAD (OR=1.27, 95% CI 1.04-1.56, p=0.02) to be associated with infection. CONCLUSIONS: Infection is a major challenge during ECMO and VAD support. Each mechanical circulatory support configuration is associated with specific pathogens; fungal infections play a major role.

Cefoperazone versus ceftriaxone monotherapy of nosocomial pneumonia.

Ceftriaxone and cefoperazone monotherapy was compared in a multicentered, randomized, nonblinded, prospective study of patients with nosocomial pneumonia. These antibiotics were equally effective, with an overall successful treatment rate of 48 (80%) of 60 for the cefoperazone-treated patients and 35 (70%) of 50 for the ceftriaxone-treated patients. Patients with nursing-home-acquired pneumonia had similar bacterial pathogens and an almost identical cure rate to those patients with hospital-acquired infection. There was no statistical difference in the incidence of side effects of superinfections. The development of secondary pneumonia with resistant bacteria was low, 3% with cefoperazone and 4% with ceftriaxone. When antibiotic, administrative, and laboratory costs were calculated, cefoperazone was slightly less expensive than ceftriaxone. Both cefoperazone and ceftriaxone are effective therapy for the treatment of nosocomial pneumonia.

Treatment of nosocomial pneumonia: monotherapy versus combination therapy.

Pneumonia accounts for 15% of all nosocomial infections, and mortality case rates are as high as 60%. Aspiration of oropharyngeal flora is the most common antecedent to nosocomial pneumonia. Patients with chronic lung disease, depressed levels of consciousness, or who are intubated are at increased risk of developing pneumonia. We conducted two comparative, prospective studies using monotherapy with third-generation cephalosporins--the first comparing cefoperazone with combination therapy, and the second comparing cefoperazone monotherapy with ceftazidime monotherapy--for the treatment of nosocomial pneumonia in mildly to moderately ill patients. We found that both cefoperazone monotherapy and ceftazidime monotherapy were as effective as standard two-drug combinations (clindamycin/gentamicin or cefazolin/gentamicin). When total antibiotic costs were compared, cefoperazone monotherapy was the least expensive regimen.

Cefoperazone versus ceftazidime monotherapy of nosocomial pneumonia.

Cefoperazone and ceftazidime monotherapy were compared in a randomized, prospective evaluation of patients with nosocomial pneumonia. These antibiotics were equally effective, with an overall successful treatment rate of 45 of 62 (73 percent) for cefoperazone-treated patients and 50 of 63 (79 percent) for ceftazidime-treated patients (p = 0.41). There was no difference in the incidence of side effects (including hypoprothrombinemia), superinfections, or colonization of the oropharynx with yeast, enterococcus, Staphylococcus aureus, or resistant gram-negative bacilli. When antibiotic administration, and laboratory costs are considered, cefoperazone is less expensive than ceftazidime. Both cefoperazone and ceftazidime are effective therapy for nosocomial pneumonia.

Cefoperazone versus combination antibiotic therapy of hospital-acquired pneumonia.

Cefoperazone monotherapy was compared with combination antibiotic therapy in a randomized prospective evaluation of patients with hospital-acquired pneumonia. Cefoperazone was as effective as either clindamycin/gentamicin or cefazolin/gentamicin (cure rate: 45 of 52 cefoperazone-treated patients [87 percent], versus 44 of 61 combination-therapy patients [72 percent], p = 0.069). With the exception of hypoprothrombinemia in those patients who did not receive prophylactic vitamin K, there was no difference in the incidence of side effects. In addition, no difference was noted in the incidence of superinfections or secondary pneumonias. When antibiotic costs, administration costs, and laboratory costs were considered, cefoperazone monotherapy was the least expensive antibiotic regimen. Cefoperazone is a suitable alternative to combination antibiotic therapy for the treatment of hospital-acquired pneumonia.