Linezolid for infective endocarditis: A structured approach based on a national database experience.

ABSTRACT: Current data on the frequency and efficacy of linezolid (LNZ) in infective endocarditis (IE) are based on small retrospective series. We used a national database to evaluate the effectiveness of LNZ in IE.This is a retrospective study of IE patients in the Spanish GAMES database who received LNZ. We defined 3 levels of therapeutic impact: LNZ < 7 days, LNZ high-impact (≥ 7 days, > 50% of the total treatment, and > 50% of the LNZ doses prescribed in the first weeks of treatment), and LNZ ≥ 7 days not fulfilling the high-impact criteria (LNZ-NHI). Effectiveness of LNZ was assessed using propensity score matching and multivariate analysis of high-impact cases in comparison to patients not treated with LNZ from the GAMES database matched for age-adjusted comorbidity Charlson index, heart failure, renal failure, prosthetic and intracardiac IE device, left-sided IE, and Staphylococcus aureus. Primary outcomes were in-hospital mortality and one-year mortality. Secondary outcomes included IE complications and relapses.From 3467 patients included in the GAMES database, 295 (8.5%) received LNZ. After excluding 3 patients, 292 were grouped as follows for the analyses: 99 (33.9%) patients in LNZ < 7 days, 11 (3.7%) in LNZ high-impact, and 178 (61%) in LNZ-NHI. In-hospital mortality was 51.5%, 54.4%, and 19.1% respectively. In the propensity analysis, LNZ high-impact group presented with respect to matched controls not treated with LNZ higher in-hospital mortality (54.5% vs 18.2%, P = .04). The multivariate analysis showed an independent relationship of LNZ use with in-hospital mortality (odds ratio 9.06, 95% confidence interval 1.15--71.08, P = .03).Treatment with LNZ is relatively frequent, but most cases do not fulfill our high-impact criteria. Our data suggest that the use of LNZ as definitive treatment in IE may be associated with higher in-hospital mortality.

The Impact of Culturing the Organ Preservation Fluid on Solid Organ Transplantation: A Prospective Multicenter Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND: We analyzed the prevalence, etiology, and risk factors of culture-positive preservation fluid and their impact on the management of solid organ transplant recipients. METHODS: From July 2015 to March 2017, 622 episodes of adult solid organ transplants at 7 university hospitals in Spain were prospectively included in the study. RESULTS: The prevalence of culture-positive preservation fluid was 62.5% (389/622). Nevertheless, in only 25.2% (98/389) of the cases were the isolates considered "high risk" for pathogenicity. After applying a multivariate regression analysis, advanced donor age was the main associated factor for having culture-positive preservation fluid for high-risk microorganisms. Preemptive antibiotic therapy was given to 19.8% (77/389) of the cases. The incidence rate of preservation fluid-related infection was 1.3% (5 recipients); none of these patients had received preemptive therapy. Solid organ transplant (SOT) recipients with high-risk culture-positive preservation fluid receiving preemptive antibiotic therapy presented both a lower cumulative incidence of infection and a lower rate of acute rejection and graft loss compared with those who did not have high-risk culture-positive preservation fluid. After adjusting for age, sex, type of transplant, and prior graft rejection, preemptive antibiotic therapy remained a significant protective factor for 90-day infection. CONCLUSIONS: The routine culture of preservation fluid may be considered a tool that provides information about the contamination of the transplanted organ. Preemptive therapy for SOT recipients with high-risk culture-positive preservation fluid may be useful to avoid preservation fluid-related infections and improve the outcomes of infection, graft loss, and graft rejection in transplant patients.