Low-risk Staphylococcus aureus bacteremia patients do not require routine diagnostic imaging: A multicenter retrospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Risk stratification to categorize patients with Staphylococcus aureus bacteremia (SAB) as low- or high-risk for metastatic infection may direct diagnostic evaluation and enable personalized management. We investigated the frequency of metastatic infections in low-risk SAB patients, their clinical relevance, and whether omission of routine imaging is associated with worse outcomes. METHODS: We performed a retrospective cohort study in seven Dutch hospitals among adult patients with low-risk SAB, defined as hospital-acquired infection without treatment delay, absence of prosthetic material, short duration of bacteremia, and rapid defervescence. The primary outcome was the proportion of patients whose treatment plan changed due to detected metastatic infections, as evaluated by both the actual therapy administered and by linking a retrospectively adjudicated diagnosis to guideline-recommended treatment. Secondary outcomes were 90-day relapse-free survival, and factors associated with performing of diagnostic imaging. RESULTS: Of 377 patients included, 298 (79%) underwent diagnostic imaging. In 15 of these 298 patients (5.0%) imaging findings during patient admission had been interpreted as metastatic infections that should extend duration of treatment. Using the final adjudicated diagnosis, 4 patients (1.3%) had clinically relevant metastatic infection. In a multilevel multivariable logistic regression analysis, 90-days relapse-free survival was similar between patients without imaging and those who underwent imaging (81.0% versus 83.6%; aOR 0.749 (95% CI 0.373-1.504). CONCLUSION: Our study advocates risk stratification for the management of patients with SAB. Prerequisites are follow-up blood cultures, bedside ID consultation, along with critically reviewing disease evolution. Using this approach, routine imaging could be omitted in low-risk patients.

[18F]FDG-PET/CT in Staphylococcus aureus bacteremia: a systematic review.

OBJECTIVES: [18F]FDG-PET/CT is used for diagnosing metastatic infections in Staphylococcus aureus bacteremia (SAB) and guidance of antibiotic treatment. The impact of [18F]FDG-PET/CT on outcomes remains to be determined. The aim of this systematic review was to summarize the effects of [18F]FDG-PET/CT on all-cause mortality and new diagnostic findingsin SAB. METHODS: We systematically searched PubMed, EMBASE.com, Web of Science, and Wiley's Cochrane library from inception to 29 January 2021. Eligible studies were randomized controlled trials, clinically controlled trials, prospective and retrospective cohort studies, and case-control studies investigating the effects of [18F]FDG-PET/CT in hospitalized adult patients with SAB. We excluded studies lacking a control group without [18F]FDG-PET/CT. Risk of bias was assessed using the ROBINS-I tool and certainty of evidence using the GRADE approach by two independent reviewers. RESULTS: We identified 1956 studies, of which five were included in our qualitative synthesis, including a total of 880 SAB patients. All studies were non-randomized and at moderate or serious risk of bias. Four studies, including a total of 804 patients, reported lower mortality in SAB patients that underwent [18F]FDG-PET/CT. One study including 102 patients reported more detected metastatic foci in the participants in whom [18F]FDG-PET/CT was performed. DISCUSSION: We found low certainty of evidence that [18F]FDG-PET/CT reduces mortality in patients with SAB. This effect is possibly explained by a higher frequency of findings guiding optimal antibiotic treatment and source control interventions.

The impact of implementing an endocarditis team in comparison to the classic heart team in a tertiary referral centre.

BACKGROUND: Infective endocarditis (IE) is a complex disease for which the European Society of Cardiology guideline recommends a dedicated multidisciplinary endocarditis team (ET) approach since 2015. It is currently unknown whether this ET approach is beneficial compared to a classic heart team approach including bedside consultation by an infectious disease specialist in Western Europe. METHODS: This retrospective single centre, observational cohort study was conducted at the Radboudumc, a tertiary referral centre in the Netherlands. Consecutive patients treated for IE were included from September 2017 to September 2018 before implementation of a dedicated ET and from May 2019 to May 2020 afterwards. RESULTS: In total, 90 IE patients (45 patients before and 45 patients after the implementation of the ET) were included. No significant differences were found in diagnostic workup, surgical treatment (surgery performed 69% vs. 71%, p = 0.82), time to surgery because of an urgent indication (median 4 vs. 6 days, p = 0.82), in-hospital complications (53% vs. 67%, p = 0.20), and 6-month mortality (11% vs. 13%, p = 0.75) between IE patients treated before and after the implementation of the ET. CONCLUSION: Formalization of the recommended multidisciplinary endocarditis team might not significantly improve the complication rate nor the short term outcome.

Initially unrecognised group A streptococcal pelvic inflammatory disease in a postmenopausal woman.

Invasive group A streptococcal infection is a severe disease with high mortality. Invasive group A streptococcal infection may arise after pelvic inflammatory disease. Pelvic inflammatory disease in postmenopausal women is rare. Here, we report a unique case of a postmenopausal woman with fatal invasive group A streptococcal infection due to pelvic inflammatory disease and an extraordinary course of diagnosis.