Antistaphylococcal penicillins vs. cefazolin in the treatment of methicillin-susceptible Staphylococcus aureus infective endocarditis: a quasi-experimental monocentre study
- PMID: 34383175
- DOI: 10.1007/s10096-021-04313-3
Antistaphylococcal penicillins vs. cefazolin in the treatment of methicillin-susceptible Staphylococcus aureus infective endocarditis: a quasi-experimental monocentre study
Abstract
Whether cefazolin is as effective and safer than antistaphylococcal penicillins (ASPs) for the treatment of methicillin-susceptible Staphylococcus aureus (MSSA) infective endocarditis (IE) is still debated in the absence of a randomized controlled trial. In this quasi-experimental study, we aimed to assess the effectiveness and safety of these two treatments in MSSA-IE, using the ASPs nationwide shortage in April 2016 as a unique opportunity to overcome the indication bias associated with observational studies. In this single-centre study, we compared patients with Duke-Li definite MSSA-IE treated with ASPs from January 2015 to March 2016 versus those treated with cefazolin from April 2016 to December 2018, when ASPs were not available. Effectiveness outcome was 90-day all-cause mortality. Safety outcomes included significant decrease in GFR and significant increase in serum liver enzymes. Logrank test was used to compare survival rates. Of 73 patients with MSSA-IE, 35 and 38 were treated with ASPs and cefazolin, respectively. Baseline patients' characteristics (demography, native or prosthetic valve IE, clinical characteristics, cardiac and septic complications) were similar between groups. Ninety-day all-cause mortality was 28.6% and 21.1%, in patients treated with ASPs and cefazolin, respectively (logrank p = 0.5727). There was no difference between groups for incident renal or liver toxicity events: acute kidney injury 45.7% vs. 44.7% (p = 0.933), increased ALT 5.7% vs. 13.2% (p = 0.432), bilirubin increase 5.7% vs. 10.5% (p = 0.676), in ASPs vs. cefazolin groups, respectively. In this quasi-experimental, effectiveness and safety did not statistically differ between ASPs and cefazolin for MSSA-IE treatment.
Keywords: Antistaphylococcal penicillins; Cefazolin; Cloxacillin; Infective endocarditis; Methicillin-susceptible Staphylococcus aureus; Oxacillin.
© 2021. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature.
References
-
- Habib G, Erba PA, Iung B, Donal E, Cosyns B, Laroche C et al (2019) Clinical presentation, aetiology and outcome of infective endocarditis. Results of the ESC-EORP EURO-ENDO (European infective endocarditis) registry: a prospective cohort study. Eur Heart J 40:3222–3232. https://doi.org/10.1093/eurheartj/ehz620 - DOI - PubMed
-
- Selton-Suty C, Célard M, Le Moing V, Doco-Lecompte T, Chirouze C, Iung B et al (2012) Preeminence of Staphylococcus aureus in infective endocarditis: a 1-year population-based survey. Clin Infect Dis 1(54):1230–1239. https://doi.org/10.1093/cid/cis199 - DOI
-
- Olmos C, Vilacosta I, Fernández-Pérez C, Bernal JL, Ferrera C, García-Arribas D et al (2017) The evolving nature of infective endocarditis in Spain. J Am Coll Cardiol 70:2795–2804. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacc.2017.10.005 - DOI - PubMed
-
- Cahill TJ, Prendergast BD (2016) Infective endocarditis. Lancet 387:882–893. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(15)00067-7 - DOI - PubMed
-
- Chu VH, Cabell CH, Benjamin DK, Kuniholm EF, Fowler VG, Engemann J et al (2004) Early predictors of in-hospital death in infective endocarditis. Circulation 13(109):1745–1749. https://doi.org/10.1161/01.CIR.0000124719.61827.7F - DOI
Publication types
MeSH terms
Substances
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Medical
Miscellaneous