Clinical utility of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus nasal PCR to streamline antimicrobial use in treatment of diabetic foot infection with or without osteomyelitis.

BACKGROUND: Diabetic Foot Infection (DFI) guidelines recommend empiric methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA)-targeted therapy in settings where there is high prevalence of MRSA infections or in cases of severe infection; however, they do not provide recommendations for de-escalation. This approach has the potential to increase unnecessary use of broad-spectrum antibiotics; therefore, additional strategies are needed to optimize appropriate antibiotic use. This study evaluates the effect of MRSA nasal PCR testing on MRSA-targeted antibiotic use and clinical outcomes in patients with DFI. METHODS: This was a retrospective quasi-experimental study of patients admitted to South Texas Veterans Health Care System for DFI, with or without osteomyelitis (OM), who had an MRSA nasal PCR and culture data. Eligible patients were identified from the Corporate Data Warehouse and reviewed via electronic health record. Patients were allocated into two groups: PRE (5/1/2019-4/30/2020) and POST (12/1/2020-11/30/2021) protocol implementation for de-escalation or avoidance of MRSA-targeted antibiotics. The primary outcome was median (interquartile range [IQR]) hours of empiric inpatient MRSA-targeted antibiotic therapy. A Wilcoxon Rank Sum test was used to assess the difference between the groups for the primary outcome. Secondary outcomes included the proportion of patients needing MRSA coverage added back for MRSA after de-escalation, hospital readmission, length of hospital stay (LOS), patient mortality, and acute kidney injury. RESULTS: A total of 151 patients were included (83 PRE; 68 POST). Most patients were male (98% PRE; 97% POST) with a median age of 64 (IQR, 56-72) years. Incidence of MRSA in DFI in the cohort was 14.7% overall (12% PRE and 17.6% POST). MRSA was detected via nasal PCR in 12% of patients 15.7% PRE and 7.4% POST). After protocol implementation, there was a significant decrease in empiric MRSA-targeted antibiotic therapy use, from a median of 72 (IQR, 27-120) hours in the PRE group, to 24 (IQR, 12-72) hours in the POST group (p < 0.01). No significant differences were found for other secondary outcomes. CONCLUSION: This study of patients presenting to a Veterans Affairs (VA) hospital with DFI identified a statistically significant decrease in median duration of MRSA-targeted antibiotic use post-protocol implementation. This suggests a favorable effect of MRSA nasal PCR for de-escalation or avoidance of MRSA-targeted antibiotics in DFI.

Correlation Between Patients With Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) Nares Colonization and MRSA Diabetic Foot Infections.

Infectious Diseases Society of America diabetic foot infection (DFI) guidelines indicate empiric methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) coverage for patients with a history of MRSA infection, when local prevalence of MRSA is high, or infection is clinically severe. These recommendations may lead to overutilization of empiric MRSA coverage, which can result in serious consequences. A strong negative predictive value (NPV) has been reported in literature for pneumonia, and recently, for all anatomical sites of infection. While these findings are promising, further validation is needed before clinicians may confidently use MRSA nares to guide empiric therapy for DFIs. A retrospective electronic medical record review was completed between October 1, 2013 and October 1, 2019. Patients met inclusion criteria if they were at least 18, admitted with a DFI, had MRSA nares test results, and DFI cultures. Patients were excluded if pregnant or MRSA infection within 1 year prior to index admission for DFI. A total of 200 patients met inclusion criteria. The majority of study participants were male with a mean age of 63. NPV of MRSA nares for MRSA DFIs was determined to be 94% and positive predictive value 58%. Sensitivity and specificity were 56% and 94%, respectively. Results of this study are consistent with prior literature supporting strong correlation of NPV for MRSA nares. The DFIs evaluated suggest a strong NPV of MRSA nares for MRSA DFIs, which may allow for faster de-escalation of empiric anti-MRSA antibiotic therapy and lower risk of adverse events associated with anti-MRSA therapy.

Clinical impact of implementation of rapid diagnostic testing of blood cultures with Staphylococcus aureus on patient outcomes.

Rapid diagnostic testing in microbiology labs shortens the time to identification of bacteria in blood cultures. Cepheid® GeneXpert® MRSA/SA PCR can be used to distinguish MRSA and MSSA from non-Staphylococcus aureus organisms in blood cultures. This study aims to determine if implementation of MRSA/SA PCR for blood culture pathogen identification, plus daily antimicrobial stewardship intervention, can reduce time to appropriate therapy, vancomycin duration, 30 day mortality, and 90 day recurrence in veterans. A total of 113 patients in the pre-implementation cohort and 73 patients in the post-implementation cohort were evaluated. Time to appropriate therapy was decreased from 49.8 (pre-implementation) to 20.6 (post-implementation) hours. There was a numerically shorter median duration of vancomycin therapy in the post-implementation group. There was no difference in 30 day mortality or 90 day recurrence between groups. Use of MRSA/SA PCR can improve antimicrobial use when combined with once-daily antimicrobial stewardship review.

Enoxaparin vs Continuous Heparin for Periprocedural Bridging in Patients With Atrial Fibrillation and Advanced Chronic Kidney Disease.

Bridging with enoxaparin rather than heparin has the potential to reduce the length of hospital stay, incidence of nosocomial infections, and cost of hospitalization.

Timing to antibiotic therapy in septic oncologic patients presenting without hypotension.

PURPOSE: Sepsis accounts for only 2% of the hospitalizations worldwide but more than 17% of total in-hospital mortality. Inappropriate antimicrobial selection and delays in appropriate therapy have been associated with reduced survival in severe sepsis and septic shock. No studies to date have exclusively targeted septic oncologic patients without hypotension. METHODS: This study was a retrospective chart review of 100 adult cancer patients presenting to the emergency department with sepsis without hypotension. We investigated the effect of time to appropriate antibiotics on in-hospital mortality and hospital length of stay. It was hypothesized that increased time to antibiotic administration would worsen patient outcomes including in-hospital mortality and length of stay. RESULTS: Each 1-h delay in administration of appropriate antibiotic therapy increased the odds of in-hospital mortality by 16% (adjusted OR 1.16. 95% CI 1.04-1.34, p = 0.04). Time to appropriate antibiotics had no effect on hospital length of stay. CONCLUSIONS: Time to appropriate antibiotics and in-hospital mortality were associated in this population of adult oncologic patients with sepsis without hypotension. Clinicians in the emergency department should strive to ensure the timely administration of a complete and appropriate empiric antibiotic regimen in septic patients with active cancer even in the absence of hypotension.

Antiplatelet Management for Coronary Heart Disease: Advances and Challenges.

Coronary heart disease (CHD) remains the leading cause of death in the USA. CHD accounts for 48 % of all cardiovascular mortality or approximately one of every seven deaths. Disruption of atherosclerotic plaques--usually by rupture or erosion--and superimposed thrombosis can result in acute coronary syndromes and sudden cardiac death. Silent plaque disruption may also occur and result in coronary plaque progression and ultimately the symptomatic manifestations of stable CHD. Antiplatelet agents remain the cornerstone therapy for acute thrombotic coronary syndromes and are essential for thromboprophylaxis against these events in patients with stable CHD. Antiplatelet drugs are also important adjunct therapies during percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) as they mitigate equipment-associated thrombotic complications that are partially induced by iatrogenic plaque rupture by interventionalists during balloon angioplasty in the cardiac catheterization laboratory. Since the introduction of clopidogrel, there has been considerable development in this field with at least three novel P2Y12 antagonists approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) over the past decade. Rapidly accumulating evidence is helping to guide the optimal duration of treatment with dual antiplatelet therapy after stenting, especially with the newer drug-eluting stents. More data are also emerging on the hazards and long-term safety of these agents. It is therefore prudent for clinicians to remain current on treatment options and recent advances in this area. We herein review current and emerging antiplatelet therapies and summarize their characteristics and indications of use as well as challenges and areas of ongoing research.

Analysis of gastrointestinal prophylaxis in patients receiving dual antiplatelet therapy with aspirin and clopidogrel.

BACKGROUND: Dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) has been found to reduce the risk of cardiac death, myocardial infarction, stroke, and stent thrombosis following acute coronary syndrome and percutaneous coronary intervention. However, this therapy has also been shown to increase the risk of gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding as high as 2-fold, especially in patients with multiple risk factors. Proton pump inhibitor (PPI) therapy decreases this risk. The current consensus document on reducing GI risks associated with antiplatelet agents no longer recommends PPI therapy for all patients receiving aspirin (ASA) and clopidogrel. The consensus recommendation reserves PPI therapy for patients receiving DAPT with a history of upper GI bleeding or prespecified risk factors for GI bleeding.   OBJECTIVES: To (a) describe the use of GI prophylaxis in patients on DAPT with ASA and clopidogrel and (b) assess the incidence of adverse outcomes that occurred during readmissions within 6 months of the index hospitalization.   METHODS: A retrospective chart review of patients receiving DAPT between February 1, 2011, and October 15, 2011, was performed to assess the appropriateness of GI prophylaxis based on the current consensus document. Therapy was defined as appropriate if an indication for prophylaxis was present and PPI therapy was prescribed, or if no indication was present and no GI prophylaxis was given. Inappropriate prophylaxis was defined as no indication for GI prophylaxis yet therapy received, or prophylaxis indicated but incorrect prophylaxis prescribed. Incorrect prophylaxis included no prophylaxis, histamine H2 blocker therapy, antacid, or combination therapy. During subsequent hospitalizations in the 6-month period following discharge from the index admission, patients were assessed for the development of vascular-, GI-, and PPI-related adverse events.   RESULTS: 250 patients receiving DAPT during the study period were evaluated. Gastrointestinal prophylaxis was appropriate in 48% (119/250) of patients. Of the remaining patients, 56.4% (74/131) met guideline criteria for GI prophylaxis but did not receive a PPI at discharge, whereas 43.5% (57/131) of patients received GI prophylaxis when not indicated. Thirty-three adverse events were identified during readmissions, with the most common type being vascular followed by GI and PPI adverse events, respectively.   CONCLUSION: More than half of the patients did not receive GI prophylaxis appropriately. The most common reason for nonadherence to the consensus document was no prophylaxis when indicated. Vascular events could not be directly attributed to PPI use, and GI events occurred despite prophylaxis. Overall, there was a low incidence of adverse events related to the use of PPI therapy.