The Not-So-Good Prognosis of Streptococcal Periprosthetic Joint Infection Managed by Implant Retention: The Results of a Large Multicenter Study.

BACKGROUND.: Streptococci are not an infrequent cause of periprosthetic joint infection (PJI). Management by debridement, antibiotics, and implant retention (DAIR) is thought to produce a good prognosis, but little is known about the real likelihood of success. METHODS.: A retrospective, observational, multicenter, international study was performed during 2003-2012. Eligible patients had a streptococcal PJI that was managed with DAIR. The primary endpoint was failure, defined as death related to infection, relapse/persistence of infection, or the need for salvage therapy. RESULTS.: Overall, 462 cases were included (median age 72 years, 50% men). The most frequent species was Streptococcus agalactiae (34%), and 52% of all cases were hematogenous. Antibiotic treatment was primarily using ß-lactams, and 37% of patients received rifampin. Outcomes were evaluable in 444 patients: failure occurred in 187 (42.1%; 95% confidence interval, 37.5%-46.7%) after a median of 62 days from debridement; patients without failure were followed up for a median of 802 days. Independent predictors (hazard ratios) of failure were rheumatoid arthritis (2.36), late post-surgical infection (2.20), and bacteremia (1.69). Independent predictors of success were exchange of removable components (0.60), early use of rifampin (0.98 per day of treatment within the first 30 days), and long treatments (≥21 days) with ß-lactams, either as monotherapy (0.48) or in combination with rifampin (0.34). CONCLUSIONS.: This is the largest series to our knowledge of streptococcal PJI managed by DAIR, showing a worse prognosis than previously reported. The beneficial effects of exchanging the removable components and of ß-lactams are confirmed and maybe also a potential benefit from adding rifampin.

Viral respiratory infections in a nursing home: a six-month prospective study.

BACKGROUND: The knowledge on viral respiratory infections in nursing home (NH) residents and their caregivers is limited. The purpose of the present study was to assess and compare the incidence of acute respiratory infections (ARI) in nursing home (NH) residents and staff, to identify viruses involved in ARI and to correlate viral etiology with clinical manifestations of ARI. METHODS: The prospective surveillance study was accomplished in a medium-sized NH in Slovenia (central Europe). Ninety NH residents and 42 NH staff were included. Nasopharyngeal swabs were collected from all participants at enrollment (December 5th, 2011) and at the end of the study (May 31st, 2012), and from each participant that developed ARI within this timeframe. Molecular detection of 15 respiratory viruses in nasopharyngeal swab samples was performed. RESULTS: The weekly incidence rate of ARI in NH residents and NH staff correlated; however, it was higher in staff members than in residents (5.9 versus 3.8/1,000 person-days, P = 0.03), and was 2.5 (95 % CI: 1.36-4.72) times greater in residents without dementia than in residents with dementia. Staff members typically presented with upper respiratory tract involvement, whereas in residents lower respiratory tract infections predominated. Respiratory viruses were detected in 55/100 ARI episodes. In residents, influenza A virus, respiratory syncytial virus, and human metapneumovirus were detected most commonly, whereas in NH staff rhinovirus and influenza A virus prevailed. 38/100 ARI episodes (30/56 in residents, 8/44 in staff) belonged to one of three outbreaks (caused by human metapneumovirus, influenza A virus and respiratory syncytial virus, respectively). NH residents had higher chances for virus positivity within outbreak than HN staff (OR = 7.4, 95 % CI: 1.73-31.48, P < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: ARI are common among NH residents and staff, and viruses were detected in a majority of the episodes of ARI. Many ARI episodes among NH residents were outbreak cases and could be considered preventable. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The study was registered on the 1th of December 2011 at ClinicalTrials ( NCT01486160 ).

Spinal infections with and without hardware: the viewpoint of an infectious disease specialist.

The incidence rate of spinal infections has been rising in last decades, and despite the advances in medicine, they still represent a therapeutic challenge, especially when related to spinal implants. The majority of spinal infections in developed world are caused by pyogenic bacteria, with Staphylococcus aureus as a leading cause among gram-positive cocci and Escherichia coli among gram-negative bacteria, whereas coagulase-negative staphylococci are frequently involved in implant-associated spinal infections. Implant-associated spinal infections are caused by bacteria capable of biofilm production on the implant surface rendering them resistant to majority of antimicrobial drugs. Spinal infections in patients without implants can be treated conservatively with pathogen-directed antimicrobial therapy, whereas in implant-associated spinal infections combined surgical and antibiotic therapy is necessary. Empiric antimicrobial treatment of spinal infections without microbiological diagnosis should be discouraged in the era of drug resistant pathogens.

Audit of Post-Splenectomy Prophylaxis in a Single Tertiary Center in Slovenia: Where Are We and What Should Be Done?

Background: Patients who have had splenectomies are at increased risk for severe infections and overwhelming sepsis caused by pneumococci, meningococci, Haemophilus influenzae, and other encapsulated pathogens. Prophylactic measures are important to reduce mortality in this group; among them are vaccinations, antibiotic prophylaxis, and education. We performed a retrospective audit of post-splenectomy prophylactic measures, focusing on vaccinations and antibiotic prophylaxis coverage. Patients and Methods: We included 156 adult patients who had splenectomies between January 2010 and December 2018 in a study conducted at a single tertiary medical center. Data regarding vaccinations, antibiotic prophylaxis, and severe infections in the post-splenectomy period were obtained from medical records and supplemented by a patient-devised questionnaire. Results: Overall 121 of 156 (77.5%) of patients received a basic pneumococcal vaccination, although only 27 of 70 (38.6%) received re-vaccination after five years. Lower vaccination coverage was observed for meningococcal diseases and Haemophilus influenzae type b (Hib) disease with 57.0% (89/156) and 55.7% (87/156) vaccination coverage, respectively. A difference in pneumococcal vaccination coverage between patients after elective splenectomy (81/91; 89.0%) and non-elective splenectomy (40/65; 61.5%) was observed. However, no difference was observed among meningococcal and Hib vaccination coverage. Antibiotic prophylaxis was recommended to patients more frequently after elective splenectomy (41/82; 50.0%) than non-elective (16/56; 28.6%) yet after an elective splenectomy, patients discontinued the prophylaxis more often than those after a non-elective surgery. Overall, only 30 of 146 (20.5%) of patients received antibiotic prophylaxis over two years. In the observed period, 12.3% of patients suffered a severe infection. Conclusion: Our study shows that there is adequate basic pneumococcal vaccination coverage among patients after a splenectomy particularly after an elective splenectomy, but there is a lack of and an inadequate implementation of other prophylactic measures. There is an urgent need for an organized approach involving better education of healthcare practitioners as well as patients concerning the risk of asplenia. In addition, an improved long-term follow-up is needed including establishing a central registry for the asplenic patients in Slovenia.