The Mark Coventry, MD, Award: Oral Antibiotics Reduce Reinfection After Two-Stage Exchange: A Multicenter, Randomized Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND: Many patients develop recurrent periprosthetic joint infection after two-stage exchange arthroplasty of the hip or knee. One potential but insufficiently tested strategy to decrease the risk of persistent or recurrent infection is to administer additional antibiotics after the second-stage reimplantation. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: (1) Does a 3-month course of oral antibiotics decrease the risk of failure secondary to infection after a two-stage exchange? (2) Are there any complications related to the administration of oral antibiotics after a two-stage exchange? (3) In those patients who develop a reinfection, is the infecting organism different from the initial infection? METHODS: Patients at seven centers randomized to receive 3 months of oral antibiotics or no further antibiotic treatment after operative cultures after the second-stage reimplantation were negative. Adult patients undergoing two-stage hip or knee revision arthroplasty for a periprosthetic infection who met Musculoskeletal Infection Society (MSIS) criteria for infection at the first stage were included. Oral antibiotic therapy was tailored to the original infecting organism(s) in consultation with an infectious disease specialist. MSIS criteria as used by the treating surgeon defined failure. Surveillance of patients for complications, including reinfection, occurred at 3 weeks, 6 weeks, 3 months, 12 months, and 24 months. If an organism demonstrated the same antibiotic sensitivities as the original organism, it was considered the same organism; no DNA subtyping was performed. Analysis was performed as intent to treat with all randomized patients included in the groups to which they were randomized. A log-rank survival curve was used to analyze the primary outcome of reinfection. At planned interim analysis (enrollment is ongoing), 59 patients were successfully randomized to the antibiotic group and 48 patients to the control group. Fifty-seven patients had an infection after TKA and 50 after a THA. There was no minimum followup for inclusion in this analysis. The mean followup was 14 months in the antibiotic group and 10 months in the control group. RESULTS: Patients treated with oral antibiotics failed secondary to infection less frequently than those not treated with antibiotics (5% [three of 59] versus 19% [nine of 48]; hazard ratio, 4.37; 95% confidence interval, 1.297-19.748; p = 0.016). Three patients had an adverse reaction to the oral antibiotics severe enough to cause them to stop taking the antibiotics early, and four patients who were randomized to that group did not take the antibiotics as directed. With the numbers available, there were no differences between the study groups in terms of the likelihood that an infection after treatment would be with a new organism (eight of nine in the control group versus one of three in the treatment group, p = 0.087). CONCLUSIONS: This multicenter randomized trial suggests that at short-term followup, the addition of 3 months of oral antibiotics appeared to improve infection-free survival. As a planned interim analysis, however, these results may change as the study reaches closure and the safety profile may yet prove risky. Further followup of this cohort of patients will be necessary to determine whether these preliminary results are durable over time. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level I, therapeutic study.

Elevated hepatic transaminases associated with telithromycin therapy: a case report and literature review.

PURPOSE: A case of mild hepatocellular injury associated with the administration of telithromycin in a patient with no risk factors for hepatotoxicity is presented. SUMMARY: A 44-year-old man with no significant past medical history arrived at the emergency room after six days of high fever, chills, headache, neck stiffness, and back pain. Five days earlier, he visited a family medicine clinic for his symptoms and oral telithromycin 800 mg daily was prescribed for a suspected upper-respiratory-tract infection. The patient stopped taking the drug after three days due to persistent symptoms. On admission, the patient's laboratory tests revealed an aspartate transaminase (AST) concentration of 68 units/L, an alanine transaminase (ALT) value of 155 units/L, and an erythrocyte sedimentation rate of 40 mm/hr. The patient was not taking any long-term medications, had taken only aspirin for his fever, and denied the use of alcohol and illegal drugs. The patient was admitted to the general medical unit with a diagnosis of possible viral hepatitis. His urine culture was negative, and serology tests later revealed no evidence of hepatitis A, B, or C. Ibuprofen, pantoprazole, and enoxaparin were prescribed. On hospital day 2, the patient's AST and ALT concentrations had decreased to 50 and 110 units/L, respectively. By day 3, the patient's symptoms had improved and he remained afebrile. His AST and ALT values had further decreased to 41 and 105 units/L, respectively. He was then diagnosed with acute viral upper-respiratory-tract infection with mild hepatotoxicity associated with telithromycin and was discharged home with orders for follow-up at the family medicine clinic. CONCLUSION: A patient without risk factors for hepatotoxicity developed mild elevations in hepatic transaminases after receiving telithromycin for the treatment of a suspected upper-respiratory-tract infection.

Benefits and risks of aprotinin use during cardiac surgery.

Aprotinin is a serine protease inhibitor with antithrombotic, antifibrinolytic, and antiinflammatory effects. It is effective in reducing bleeding and the need for blood transfusions after cardiac surgery with cardiopulmonary bypass. Additional benefits, such as cerebral protection, are hypothesized but not yet thoroughly substantiated. The safety of aprotinin has been questioned based on a phase IV analysis of large data sets, including patients undergoing cardiac surgery. Potential risks including increased occurrences of stroke, myocardial infarction, renal failure, and death are implied by these analyses; however, adequate study group matching is lacking from these nonrandomized, retrospective studies. In October 2007, a large randomized controlled trial comparing antifibrinolytics in patients undergoing cardiac surgery was stopped after a preliminary analysis suggested a trend toward an increase in all-cause 30-day mortality associated with aprotinin. Subsequently, the manufacturer of aprotinin temporarily suspended marketing and halted all shipment of aprotinin on a worldwide basis. Pending a complete analysis of this study, the use of aprotinin could be considered as one component of a blood conservation strategy. After contemplating the benefits and risks of this controversial drug, clinicians should reserve its use for patients at high risk for postoperative blood loss.

Aprotinin use in cardiac surgery patients at low risk for requiring blood transfusion.

STUDY OBJECTIVES: To determine if aprotinin is safe and effective in patients at low risk for requiring blood transfusion after cardiac surgery by evaluating whether there is any significant difference in blood product use or other significant clinical outcomes between patients who received aprotinin versus those who did not. DESIGN: Retrospective review. SETTING: Inpatient community nonteaching hospital. PATIENTS: Three hundred thirty-five patients who underwent primary cardiac surgery involving cardiopulmonary bypass between November 1, 2003, and December 31, 2005, and were considered at low risk for requiring postoperative blood transfusion; 162 patients received aprotinin and 173 patients received aminocaproic acid (control). MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Comparison of patients in the aprotinin group versus those in the aminocaproic acid group revealed no difference in total donor exposures to blood products (1.86 vs 1.16 units/patient, p=0.07), total packed red blood cells (PRBCs) received (1.25 vs 0.86 units/patient, p=0.09), postoperative donor exposures to blood products (0.91 vs 0.48 unit/patient, p=0.13), or postoperative PRBCs received (0.61 vs 0.40 unit/patient, p=0.23). No difference was noted in any other clinical outcome in the aprotinin group versus the aminocaproic acid group, including postoperative azotemia (13.0% vs 10.4%, p=0.46), new onset of atrial fibrillation (14.8% vs 15.0%, p=0.95), myocardial infarction, stroke, or death. Mean +/- SD total hospital length of stay was similar in the aprotinin group versus the aminocaproic acid group (8.1 +/- 3.8 vs 7.4 +/- 2.8 days, p=0.08), but length of stay from surgery to discharge was longer in the aprotinin group than in the aminocaproic acid group (5.9 +/- 0.17 vs 5.4 +/- 0.12 days, p=0.032). CONCLUSION: Although aprotinin appeared to be safe in this low-risk patient population, it was not more effective than aminocaproic acid in reducing blood product use after cardiac surgery. More robust evidence is needed from a controlled randomized trial to demonstrate the safety, efficacy, and pharmacoeconomic benefit of aprotinin.