Candidemia in patients with cardiovascular implantable electronic devices.

PURPOSE: Current guidelines recommend complete extraction of cardiovascular implantable electronic devices (CIEDs) in the case of persistent or recurrent fungemia without other identifiable sources, though supporting evidence is lacking. We sought to evaluate the prognosis of patients with candidemia and CIEDs. METHODS: Twelve consecutive patients (54 ± 12 years, 8 male) with CIED and concurrent candidemia were reviewed. RESULTS: At the time of diagnosis with candidemia, seven patients were immunocompromised, six were on long-term antibacterial therapy, two were intravenous drug users, four were on chronic hemodialysis, and six had a central venous catheter. Four patients were confirmed as definite CIED infection as vegetation was visible on lead by echocardiogram. The other 8 patients were considered possible CIED infection with candidemia of unknown focus. All patients with visible vegetation underwent CIED removal without complications, and other patients were initially managed non-operatively. After 1 year of follow-up, 7 patients had died and at extended follow-up, all patients without lead removal died while 3 of 4 patients with lead extraction survived. Of note, 50% of deaths in the patients without lead removal were associated with fungal sepsis. CONCLUSIONS: Candida fungemia is associated with a high mortality. CIED removal should be an early consideration in these patients even if lead vegetations are not seen.

Description of a pharmacist-driven safety algorithm in Staphylococcus aureus bacteremia: Compliance, interventions, and good saves.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the impact of a pharmacist-driven Staphylococcus aureus bacteremia (SAB) safety bundle supported by leadership and to compare compliance before and after implementation. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study with descriptive and before-and-after analyses. SETTING: Tertiary-care academic medical center. PATIENTS: All patients with documented SAB, regardless of the source of infection, were included. Patients transitioned to palliative care were excluded from before-and-after analysis. METHODS: A pharmacist-driven safety bundle including documented clearance of bacteremia, echocardiography, removal of central venous catheters, and targeted intravenous therapy of at least 2 weeks duration was implemented in November 2015 and was supported by leadership with stepwise escalation for nonresponse. A descriptive analysis of all patients with SAB during the study period included pharmacy interventions, acceptance rates, and escalation rates. A pre-post implementation analysis of 100 sequential patients compared bundle compliance and descriptive parameters. RESULTS: Overall, 391 interventions were made in the 20-month period following implementation, including 20 "good saves" avoiding potentially major adverse events. No statistically significant differences in complete bundle compliance were detected between the periods (74% vs 84%; P = .08). However, we detected a significant increase in echocardiography after the bundle was implemented (83% vs 94%; P = .02) and fewer patients received suboptimal definitive therapy after the bundle was implemented (10% vs 3%; P = .045). CONCLUSIONS: This pharmacist-driven SAB safety bundle with leadership support showed improvement in process measures, which may have prevented major adverse events, even with available infectious diseases (ID) consultation. It provides a critical safety net for institutions without mandatory ID consultation or with limited antimicrobial stewardship resources.

Antimicrobial stewardship staffing: How much is enough?

Antimicrobial stewardship improves patient care and reduces antimicrobial resistance, inappropriate use, and adverse outcomes. Despite high-profile mandates for antimicrobial stewardship programs across the healthcare continuum, descriptive data, and recommendations for dedicated resources, including appropriate physician, pharmacist, data analytics, and administrative staffing support, are not robust. This review summarizes the current literature on antimicrobial stewardship staffing and calls for the development of minimum staffing recommendations.

Risk Factors and Outcomes Associated With Acquisition of Daptomycin and Linezolid-Nonsusceptible Vancomycin-Resistant Enterococcus.

BACKGROUND: Vancomycin-resistant enterococcus (VRE) causes substantial health care-associated infection with increasing reports of resistance to daptomycin or linezolid. We conducted a case-control study reporting 81 cases of daptomycin and linezolid-nonsusceptible VRE (DLVRE), a resistance pattern not previously reported. METHODS: We reviewed VRE isolates from June 2010 through June 2015 for nonsusceptibility to both daptomycin (minimum inhibitory concentration [MIC] > 4) and linezolid (MIC ≥ 4). We matched cases by year to control patients with VRE susceptible to both daptomycin and linezolid and performed retrospective chart review to gather risk factor and outcome data. RESULTS: We identified 81 DLVRE cases. Resistance to both daptomycin and linezolid was more common than resistance to either agent individually. Compared with susceptible VRE, DLVRE was more likely to present as bacteremia without focus (P < 0.01), with DLVRE patients more likely to be immune suppressed (P = .04), to be neutropenic (P = .03), or to have had an invasive procedure in the prior 30 days (P = .04). Any antibiotic exposure over the prior 30 days conferred a 4-fold increased risk for DLVRE (odds ratio [OR], 4.25; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.43-12.63; P = .01); multivariate analysis implicated daptomycin days of therapy (DOT) over the past year as a specific risk factor (OR, 1.10; 95% CI, 1.01-1.19; P = .03). DLVRE cases had longer hospitalizations (P = .04) but no increased risk for in-hospital death. CONCLUSIONS: DLVRE is an emerging multidrug-resistant pathogen associated with immune suppression, neutropenia, and recent invasive procedure. Prior antibiotic exposure, specifically daptomycin exposure, confers risk for acquisition of DLVRE.

Ventilator Bundle Compliance and Risk of Ventilator-Associated Events.

OBJECTIVEVentilator bundles encompass practices that reduce the risk of ventilator complications, including ventilator-associated pneumonia. The impact of ventilator bundles on the risk of developing ventilator-associated events (VAEs) is unknown. We sought to determine whether decreased compliance to the ventilator bundle increases the risk for VAE development.DESIGNNested case-control study.SETTINGThis study was conducted at 6 adult intensive care units at an academic tertiary-care center in Tennessee.PATIENTSIn total, 273 patients with VAEs were randomly matched in a 1:4 ratio to controls by mechanical ventilation duration and ICU type.METHODSControls were selected from the primary study population at risk for a VAE after being mechanically ventilated for the same number of days as a specified case. Using conditional logistic regression analysis, overall cumulative compliance, and compliance with individual components of the bundle in the 3 and 7 days prior to VAE development (or the control match day) were examined.RESULTSOverall bundle compliance at 3 days (odds ratio [OR], 1.15; P=.34) and 7 days prior to VAE diagnosis (OR, 0.96; P=.83) were not associated with VAE development. This finding did not change when limiting the outcome to infection-related ventilator-associated complications (IVACs) and after adjusting for age and gender. In the examination of compliance with specific bundle components increased compliance with chlorhexidine oral care was associated with increased risk of VAE development in all analyses.CONCLUSIONSVentilator bundle compliance was not associated with a reduced risk for VAEs. Higher compliance with chlorhexidine oral care was associated with a greater risk for VAE development.Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2018;39:637-643.