Audit of antibiotic therapy used in 66 cases of endocarditis

Breaking the Dogma of Intravenous Treatment for Infective Endocarditis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Introduction: The treatment of infective endocarditis (IE) is based on long intravenous administration of antibiotics. This is still a hard-to-die dogma. Throughout the years, different researchers have attempted to demonstrate the safety and efficacy of an oral switch of the antibiotic regimen, with only scarce success. Nevertheless, in recent years, different reports have evaluated the efficacy of oral switch therapy in selected patients. Due to the lack of large trials, a meta-analysis could be useful to evaluate the potential benefits of early oral switch therapy not only in terms of microbiological cure but also in terms of relapse, mortality, and length of hospital stay (LOS). Methods: We conducted a Medline search, from which we were able to extrapolate 29 papers on IE treatment; the inclusion criteria were met by six papers only. Three trials were not randomized studies; therefore, we conducted the analysis both including and excluding the mentioned papers. Results: Overall, we conducted our analysis on 840 patients who received intravenous treatment and 677 who received oral treatment. Our results confirmed that oral switch therapy represents an option in selected patients, with a reduction in the relapse rate (OR: 0.54, 95% CI: 0.31-0.92). No statistically significant differences were observed for treatment failure (OR: 0.74, 95% CI: 0.48-1.14), length of hospitalization (OR: -0.42, 95% CI: -1.55-0.71), complication rate (OR: 0.38, 95% CI: 0.1-1.54), and mortality (OR: 0.52, 95% CI: 0.22-1.22). Discussion: Our results allow us to conclude that oral switch therapy is a feasible option in clinically stable patients with infective endocarditis. Moreover, oral switch therapy seems to perform significantly better than intravenous treatment in terms of relapse of infection. The data further support the implementation of oral switch therapy in infective endocarditis.

Development of quality indicators for antimicrobial stewardship in Belgian hospitals: a RAND - modified Delphi procedure

INTRODUCTION

Inappropriate antibiotic use is a major cause of antibiotic resistance. Therefore, optimizing antibiotic usage is essential. In Belgium, optimization of antimicrobials for the fight against multidrug resistant organisms (MDROs) is followed up by national surveillance by public health authorities. To improve appropriate antimicrobial use in hospitals, an effective national Antimicrobial Stewardship (AMS) program should include indicators for measuring both the quantity and quality of antibiotic use.

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to develop a set of process quality indicators (QIs) to evaluate and improve AMS in hospitals.

METHODS

A RAND-modified Delphi procedure was used. The procedure consisted of a structured narrative literature review to select the QIs, followed by two online questionnaires and an intermediate multidisciplinary panel discussion with experts in infectious diseases from general and teaching hospitals in Belgium.

RESULTS

A total of 38 QIs were selected after the RAND-modified Delphi procedure, from which 11 QIs were selected unanimously. These QIs address compliancy of antibiotic therapy and prophylaxis with local guidelines, documentation of the rationale for antibiotic treatment in the medical record, the availability of AMS Programs and Outpatient Parenteral Antibiotic Therapy, resistance patterns and antimicrobial prescribing during focused ward rounds.

CONCLUSION

Our study selected 38 relevant process QIs, from which 11 were unanimously selected. The QIs can contribute to the improvement of quality of antibiotic use by stimulating hospitals to present better outcomes and by providing a focus on how to intervene and to improve prescribing of antimicrobials.

Clinical implementation of partial oral treatment in infective endocarditis: the Danish POETry study

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

In the Partial Oral Treatment of Endocarditis (POET) trial, stabilized patients with left-sided infective endocarditis (IE) were randomized to oral step-down antibiotic therapy (PO) or conventional continued intravenous antibiotic treatment (IV), showing non-inferiority after 6 months. In this study, the first guideline-driven clinical implementation of the oral step-down POET regimen was examined.

METHODS

Patients with IE, caused by Staphylococcus aureus, Enterococcus faecalis, Streptococcus spp. or coagulase-negative staphylococci diagnosed between May 2019 and December 2020 were possible candidates for initiation of oral step-down antibiotic therapy, at the discretion of the treating physician. The composite primary outcome in patients finalizing antibiotic treatment consisted of embolic events, unplanned cardiac surgery, relapse of bacteraemia and all-cause mortality within 6 months.

RESULTS

A total of 562 patients [median age 74 years (IQR, interquartile range, 65-80), 70% males] with IE were possible candidates; PO was given to 240 (43%) patients and IV to 322 (57%) patients. More patients in the IV group had IE caused by S. aureus, or had an intra-cardiac abscess, or a pacemaker and more were surgically treated. The primary outcome occurred in 30 (13%) patients in the PO group and in 59 (18%) patients in the IV group (P = .051); in the PO group, 20 (8%) patients died vs. 46 (14%) patients in the IV group (P = .024). PO-treated patients had a shorter median length of stay [PO 24 days (IQR 17-36) vs. IV 43 days (IQR 32-51), P < .001].

CONCLUSIONS

After clinical implementation of the POET regimen almost half of the possible candidates with IE received oral step-down antibiotic therapy. Patients in the IV group had more serious risk factors for negative outcomes. At 6-month follow-up, there was a numerically but not statistically significant difference towards a lower incidence of the primary outcome, a lower incidence of all-cause mortality and a reduced length of stay in the PO group. Due to the observational design of the study, the lower mortality may to some extent reflect selection bias and unmeasured confounding. Clinical implementation of PO regimens seemed feasible and safe.

New Antimicrobials and New Therapy Strategies for Endocarditis: Weapons That Should Be Defended

The overall low-quality evidence concerning the clinical benefits of different antibiotic regimens for the treatment of infective endocarditis (IE), which has made it difficult to strongly support or reject any regimen of antibiotic therapy, has led to a discrepancy between the available guidelines and clinical practice. In this complex scenario, very recently published guidelines have attempted to fill this gap. Indeed, in recent years several antimicrobials have entered the market, including ceftobiprole, ceftaroline, and the long-acting lipoglycopeptides dalbavancin and oritavancin. Despite being approved for different indications, real-world data on their use for the treatment of IE, alone or in combination, has accumulated over time. Furthermore, an old antibiotic, fosfomycin, has gained renewed interest for the treatment of complicated infections such as IE. In this narrative review, we focused on new antimicrobials and therapeutic strategies that we believe may provide important contributions to the advancement of Gram-positive IE treatment, providing a summary of the current in vitro, in vivo, and clinical evidence supporting their use in clinical practice.

Choosing patients over placebos: oral transitional therapy vs. IV-only therapy for bacteraemia and infective endocarditis

BACKGROUND

The belief that antibiotics must be administered intravenously (IV) to treat bacteraemia and endocarditis has its origins 70 years ago and has engrained itself in the psyche of the medical community and the public at large. This has led to hesitancy in adopting evidence-based strategies utilizing oral transitional therapy for the treatment of these infections. We aim to reframe the narrative around this debate, focusing on patient safety over vestigial psychology.

OBJECTIVES

This narrative review summarizes the current state of the literature regarding the use of oral transitional therapy for the treatment of bacteraemia and infective endocarditis, focusing on studies comparing it to the traditional, IV-only approach.

SOURCES

Relevant studies and abstracts from PubMed reviewed in April 2023.

CONTENT

Treating bacteraemia with oral transitional therapy has been studied in 9 randomized controlled trials (RCTs), totalling 625 patients, as well as numerous large, retrospective cohorts, including 3 published in the last 5 years alone, totalling 4763 patients. We identified 3 large, retrospective cohort studies; one quasi-experimental, pre-post study, and 3 RCTs of patients with endocarditis, totalling 748 patients in the retrospective cohorts and 815 patients in prospective, controlled studies. In all these studies, no worse outcomes were observed in the oral transitional therapy arm as compared with IV-only therapy. The main difference has consistently been longer durations of inpatient hospitalization and increased risk of catheter-related adverse events like venous thrombosis and line-associated blood stream infections in the IV-only groups.

IMPLICATIONS

There are ample data showing that choosing oral therapy reduces hospital stay and has fewer adverse events for patients than IV-only therapy, all with similar or better outcomes. In selected patients, choosing IV-only therapy may serve more as an anxiolytic "placebo" for the patient and provider rather than a necessity for treating the actual infection.

Heartbreaking Decisions: The Dogma and Uncertainties of Antimicrobial Therapy in Infective Endocarditis

Infective endocarditis (IE) is a rare but increasingly prevalent disease with high morbidity and mortality, requiring antimicrobials and at times surgical intervention. Through the decades of healthcare professionals' experience with managing IE, certain dogmas and uncertainties have arisen around its pharmacotherapy. The introduction of new antimicrobials and novel combinations are exciting developments but also further complicate IE treatment choices. In this review, we provide and evaluate the relevant evidence focused around contemporary debates in IE treatment pharmacotherapy, including beta-lactam choice in MSSA IE, combination therapies (aminoglycosides, ceftaroline), the use of oral antimicrobials, the role of rifamycins, and long-acting lipoglycopeptides.

Treatment of Enterococcus faecalis Infective Endocarditis: A Continuing Challenge

Today, Enterococcus faecalis is one of the main causes of infective endocarditis in the world, generally affecting an elderly and fragile population, with a high mortality rate. Enterococci are partially resistant to many commonly used antimicrobial agents such as penicillin and ampicillin, as well as high-level resistance to most cephalosporins and sometimes carbapenems, because of low-affinity penicillin-binding proteins, that lead to an unacceptable number of therapeutic failures with monotherapy. For many years, the synergistic combination of penicillins and aminoglycosides has been the cornerstone of treatment, but the emergence of strains with high resistance to aminoglycosides led to the search for new alternatives, like dual beta-lactam therapy. The development of multi-drug resistant strains of Enterococcus faecium is a matter of considerable concern due to its probable spread to E. faecalis and have necessitated the search of new guidelines with the combination of daptomycin, fosfomycin or tigecycline. Some of them have scarce clinical experience and others are still under investigation and will be analyzed in this review. In addition, the need for prolonged treatment (6–8 weeks) to avoid relapses has forced to the consideration of other viable options as outpatient parenteral strategies, long-acting administrations with the new lipoglycopeptides (dalbavancin or oritavancin), and sequential oral treatments, which will also be discussed.

Oral antibiotics for infective endocarditis: a clinical review

Current guidelines for management of infective endocarditis (IE) advise 4-6 weeks of IV antibiotics. This is based on historical data from animal models, which set a precedent for high peak serum antimicrobial levels, thought to be only achievable with IV therapy. However, there has been increasing recent interest in oral antibiotics as an alternative to prolonged parenteral therapy, not limited to treatment of IE. This review examines the theory behind parenteral antibiotic administration with reference to the MICs of relevant pathogens. By comparing published serum antimicrobial levels after oral and IV administration we suggest that safe levels of commonly used antibiotics can be achieved orally. We have then reviewed the literature to date on oral antibiotics for IE. The largest randomized controlled trial (RCT) in this area, the POET trial, concluded that oral therapy was non-inferior to prolonged IV therapy in stable patients with left-sided IE. Additionally, there have been two smaller RCTs published, as well as a number of observational studies over the last 50 years, utilizing a variety of different patient groups, methods and treatment strategies. This body of evidence gives weight to a potential shift in practice towards oral therapy, primarily as a step-down treatment. We conclude that pharmacological data offer theoretical reassurance for the safety of oral therapy. This is coupled with a growing evidence base for non-inferiority of oral antimicrobials compared with prolonged parenteral therapy in practice.

Retrospective analysis of endocarditis patients to investigate the eligibility for oral antibiotic treatment in routine daily practice

Background

According to the current guidelines of the European Society of Cardiology, patients with left-sided infective endocarditis are treated with intravenous antibiotics for 4–6 weeks, leading to extensive hospital stay and high costs. Recently, the Partial Oral Treatment of Endocarditis (POET) trial suggested that partial oral treatment is effective and safe in selected patients. Here, we investigated if such patients are seen in our daily clinical practice.

Methods

We enrolled 119 adult patients diagnosed with left-sided infective endocarditis in a retrospective, observational study. We identified those that would be eligible for switching to partial oral antibiotic treatment as defined in the POET trial (e.g. stable clinical condition without signs of infection). Secondary objectives were to provide insight into the time until each patient was eligible for partial oral treatment, and to determine parameters of longer hospital stay and/or need for extended intravenous antibiotic treatment.

Results

Applying the POET selection criteria, the condition of 38 patients (32%) was stable enough to switch them to partial oral treatment, of which 18 (47.3%), 8 (21.1%), 9 (23.7%) and 3 patients (7.9%) were eligible for switching after 10, 14, 21 days or 28 days of intravenous treatment, respectively.

Conclusion

One-third of patients who presented with left-sided endocarditis in routine clinical practice were possible candidates for switching to partial oral treatment. This could have major implications for both the patient’s quality of life and healthcare costs. These results offer an interesting perspective for implementation of such a strategy, which should be accompanied by a prospective cost-effectiveness analysis.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1007/s12471-020-01490-2) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Oral switch versus standard intravenous antibiotic therapy in left-sided endocarditis due to susceptible staphylococci, streptococci or enterococci (RODEO): a protocol for two open-label randomised controlled trials

INTRODUCTION

Left-sided infective endocarditis (IE) is a serious infection with a heavy burden for patients and healthcare system. Oral switch after initial intravenous antibiotic therapy may reduce costs and improve patients' discomfort without increasing unfavourable outcomes. We describe the methodology of two simultaneously conducted open-label randomised trials aiming to assess non-inferiority of oral switch as compared with entirely intravenous antibiotic therapy for the treatment of left-sided IE.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

Two simultaneous multicentre open-label prospective randomised trials assessing non-inferiority of oral switch during antibiotic treatment as compared with entirely intravenous therapy in patients with left-sided IE are ongoing. One trial is dedicated to left-sided IE caused by multisusceptible staphylococci (Relais Oral Dans le traitement des Endocardites à staphylocoques ou streptOcoques (RODEO)-1) and the other is dedicated to left-sided IE caused by susceptible streptococci or enterococci (RODEO-2). It is planned to randomise 324 patients in each trial after an initial course of at least 10 days of intravenous antibiotic therapy either to continue intravenous antibiotic therapy or to switch to oral antibiotic therapy. The primary outcome is treatment failure within 3 months after the end of antibiotic treatment, a composite outcome defined by all-cause death and/or symptomatic embolic events and/or unplanned valvular surgery and/or microbiological relapse (with the primary pathogen). Secondary outcomes include patient quality of life, echocardiographic outcome, costs and efficiency associated with IE care. Statistical analysis will be performed with a non-inferiority margin of 10% and a one-sided 2.5% type I error.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

Written informed consent will be obtained from all participants. This study was approved by Tours Research ethics committee (CPP TOURS-Region Centre-Ouest 1, 2015-R26, 23 February 2016). Study findings will be published in peer-reviewed journals and disseminated through presentation at relevant national and international conferences.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

EudraCT Number: 2015-002371-16 and NCT02701608; NCT02701595.

Evaluation of a Paradigm Shift From Intravenous Antibiotics to Oral Step-Down Therapy for the Treatment of Infective Endocarditis: A Narrative Review

IMPORTANCE

The requirement of prolonged intravenous antibiotic courses to treat infective endocarditis (IE) is a time-honored dogma of medicine. However, numerous antibiotics are now available that achieve adequate levels in the blood after oral administration to kill bacteria. Moreover, prolonged intravenous antibiotic regimens are associated with high rates of adverse events. Accordingly, recent studies of oral step-down antibiotic treatment have stimulated a reevaluation of the need for intravenous-only therapy for IE.

OBSERVATIONS

PubMed was reviewed in October 2019, with an update in February 2020, to determine whether evidence supports the notion that oral step-down antibiotic therapy for IE is associated with inferior outcomes compared with intravenous-only therapy. The search identified 21 observational studies evaluating the effectiveness of oral antibiotics for treating IE, typically after an initial course of intravenous therapy; none found such oral step-down therapy to be inferior to intravenous-only therapy. Multiple studies described an improved clinical cure rate and an improved mortality rate among patients treated with oral step-down vs intravenous-only antibiotic therapy. Three randomized clinical trials also demonstrated that oral step-down antibiotic therapy is at least as effective as intravenous-only therapy in right-sided, left-sided, or prosthetic valve IE. In the largest trial, at 3.5 years of follow-up, patients randomized to receive oral step-down antibiotic therapy had a significantly improved cure rate and mortality rate compared with those who received intravenous-only therapy.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

This review found ample data demonstrating the therapeutic effectiveness of oral step-down vs intravenous-only antibiotic therapy for IE, and no contrary data were identified. The use of highly orally bioavailable antibiotics as step-down therapy for IE, after clearing bacteremia and achieving clinical stability with intravenous regimens, should be incorporated into clinical practice.

Impact of adherence to surgical and non-surgical components of infective endocarditis guidelines and recommendations

BACKGROUND

Infective endocarditis (IE) is associated with significant morbidity and mortality. Non-adherence to IE guidelines and recommendations is frequent, and may adversely impact patient outcomes.

AIM

To assess the impact of non-adherence to components of existing IE guidelines and recommendations on a composite outcome consisting of any of the following: mortality, unplanned cardiac surgery, embolic event or relapse of positive blood culture within six months of diagnosis.

METHODS

A single centre, retrospective cohort study.

RESULTS

Amongst 157 patients, there was inconsistent adherence to: initial diagnosis of an infective condition (87%), timely administration of antimicrobial therapy (82%), appropriateness of predominant antimicrobial regime (94%), appropriate management of the portal of entry (86%), multidisciplinary input (75%), end of antimicrobial therapy repeat echocardiography (60%) and adherence to indications for surgery (76%). Inpatient mortality was 12.1% (n = 19) and the composite adverse outcome occurred in 36 (22.9%) patients. In multivariate logistic regression analysis, infection of prosthetic device (adjusted odds ratio [95% confidence interval]; 2.43 [1.07-5.50]) and non-adherence to surgical guidelines (aOR 3.67 [1.60-8.47]) were significantly associated with an adverse outcome.

CONCLUSIONS

Our data suggests that adherence to differing components of IE management guidelines and recommendations varies and that non-adherence to surgical aspects of guidelines has the biggest impact in determining outcomes.

Partial oral antibiotic therapy is non-inferior to intravenous therapy in non-critically ill patients with infective endocarditis : Review and meta-analysis

Background

Antimicrobial therapy is a cornerstone in the treatment of infective endocarditis (IE). Typically, intravenous (i.v.) therapy is given for 6 weeks or longer, leading to prolonged hospital stays and high costs. Several trials evaluating the efficacy of partial oral therapy (POT) have been published. This article aimed to review and meta-analyze studies comparing i.v. therapy versus POT in non-critically ill patients suffering from IE.

Methods

A structured database search (based on PRISMA guidelines) regarding POT versus i.v. therapy in IE was conducted using PubMed/Medline. Primary endpoint was all-cause mortality and a secondary endpoint IE relapse. Risk rates were calculated using a random effects model (DerSimonian and Laird). Heterogeneity was assessed using the I² statistics.

Results

After screening 1848 studies at title and abstract levels, 4 studies were included. A total of 765 patients suffered from primary left-sided IE, whereas right-sided IE was observed in 72 patients. Mortality rates were lower in POT versus i.v. therapy (risk ratio [RR] 0.38, 95% confidence interval, confidence interval [CI] 0.20–0.74; p = 0.004; I² 0%). IE relapse rates were similar (RR 0.63, 95% CI 0.29–1.37; p = 0.24; I² 0%).

Conclusion

Data comparing POT with standard care in IE is limited and to date only one sufficiently powered stand-alone trial exists to support its use. In this meta-analysis POT was non-inferior to i.v. therapy with respect to mortality and IE relapse in non-critically ill patients suffering from both left-sided and right-sided IE. These findings indicate that POT is a feasible treatment strategy in selected patients suffering from IE but further validation in future studies will be required.

Cefpodoxime proxetil as a therapeutic option in switching therapy for infective endocarditis in children: case reports and literature review

Infective endocarditis (IE) is uncommon in children, affecting predominantly subjects with congenital heart disease (CHD) and patients with indwelling central lines. The principles of antibiotic treatment in paediatric population are similar to those in adults. Prolonged intravenous administration of bactericidal rather than bacteriostatic agents is preferred. Outpatient intravenous therapy after initial treatment in the hospital may be considered only in selected patients. Partial oral treatment has been described in cases of left-sided, uncomplicated IE caused by common pathogens in adult patients. There are no guidelines or trials in paediatric population regarding switching therapy from intravenous to oral route. We present two cases of IE in children caused by uncommon pathogenic bacteria (Abiotrophia defectiva and Haemophilus parainfluenzae) successfully treated with oral third-generation cephalosporin - cefpodoxime proxetil after initial intravenous therapy. This paper provides observations on different therapeutic approach for IE in children as well as another potential use of cefpodoxime proxetil.

Current Evidence on Oral Antibiotics for Infective Endocarditis: A Narrative Review

Infective endocarditis (IE) continues to be associated with high morbidity and mortality, even when treated with optimal antibiotic regimens. The selection of treatment depends on the causative pathogen, its antibiotic susceptibility profile, local and systemic complications and the presence of prosthetic materials or devices. Standard therapy typically involves 4–6 weeks of intravenous (IV) bactericidal therapy. However, there are instances in which IV antibiotic administration may be challenging due to cost, complications of IV access, adverse side-effects of the medication or concerns for misuse of the IV line. Current clinical guidance from the American Heart Association and the European Society of Cardiology cite scenarios where oral antibiotics can be considered for treatment of IE, though these situations are relatively infrequent and data to show their non-inferiority limited. Recently, a well-designed randomized clinical study reported favorable outcomes for partial oral antimicrobial therapy regimens given to patients with staphylococcal, streptococcal and enterococcal IE deemed clinically stable and without complications such as perivalvular abscess. Oral antibiotics, usually given in combination, were selected by infectious disease providers for their favorable pharmacologic properties and predicted bactericidal activity. There was a careful selection of patients who were transitioned to oral regimens. Before recommending routine use of oral antibiotics in the care of patients with IE, additional studies that better define eligible patients and that use regimens available in the countries that adopt this practice should be performed. If further studies confirm non-inferior outcomes with partial oral antibiotics for the treatment of IE, medical treatment could be delivered in a simpler, more costeffective manner, and likely with lower rates of adverse side-effects.

Factors associated with unfavorable outcome in a multicenter audit of 100 infective endocarditis

We aimed to identify factors associated with unfavorable outcome in patients treated for infective endocarditis (IE), with a focus on departure from European guidelines. We conducted a retrospective audit of all adult patients treated for endocarditis during a 1-year period across a regional network of nine care centers in the south-east of France. Medical records were reviewed regarding patient and infection characteristics, antibiotic therapy, outcome, and compliance to the European Society of Cardiology guidelines. Antibiotic treatment appropriateness was evaluated regarding molecule, dosage, and duration, according to guidelines. Primary endpoint was the assessment of factors associated with unfavorable outcome, defined as in-hospital mortality or IE relapse at 1-year follow-up. Secondary endpoints were intensive care admission, iatrogenic events, and nosocomial infections that occurred during hospital stay. One hundred patients were included. Median age was 71 years old. Twenty-two patients died and IE relapse occurred in two patients, representing 24 patients with unfavorable outcome. Overall, antibiotic treatment was deemed appropriate in 28 cases. Thirty-three patients required intensive care, 34 iatrogenic events were found, including 19 acute kidney injuries, and 13 nosocomial infections occurred during care. Using a logistic regression, factors associated with unfavorable outcome were admission in the intensive care unit (adjusted odd ratio 7.26 [1.8-29.28]; p = 0.005), new-onset nosocomial infection (adjusted odd ratio 8.83 [1.42-54.6]; p = 0.019), and age > 71 years old (adjusted odd ratio 11.2 [2.76-46.17]; p < 0.001). Departure from guidelines was frequent but not related to unfavorable outcome in our study. Only intensive care, age, and nosocomial infections were associated with mortality and relapse. Iatrogenic events were numerous, with no impact on outcome.

Endocarditis in the Mediterranean Basin

Infective endocarditis is a severe disease with high mortality. Despite a global trend towards an increase in staphylococcal aetiologies, in older patients and a decrease in viridans streptococci, we have observed in recent studies great epidemiologic disparities between countries. In order to evaluate these differences among Mediterranean countries, we performed a PubMed search of infective endocarditis case series for each country. Data were available for 13 of the 18 Mediterranean countries. Despite great differences in diagnostic strategies, we could classify countries into three groups. In northern countries, patients are older (>50 years old), have a high rate of prosthetic valves or cardiac electronic implantable devices and the main causative agent is Staphylococcus aureus. In southern countries, patients are younger (<40 years old), rheumatic heart disease remains a major risk factor (45–93%), viridans streptococci are the main pathogens, zoonotic and arthropod-borne agents are frequent and blood culture–negative endocarditis remains highly prevalent. Eastern Mediterranean countries exhibit an intermediate situation: patients are 45 to 60 years old, the incidence of rheumatic heart disease ranges from 8% to 66%, viridans streptococci play a predominant role and zoonotic and arthropod-borne diseases, in particular brucellosis, are identified in up to 12% of cases.

International experts' practice in the antibiotic therapy of infective endocarditis is not following the guidelines

OBJECTIVE

The management of infective endocarditis (IE) may differ from international guidelines, even in reference centres. This is probably because most recommendations are not based on hard evidence, so the consensus obtained for the guidelines does not represent actual practices. For this reason, we aimed to evaluate this question in the particular field of antibiotic therapy.

METHODS

Thirteen international centres specialized in the management of IE were selected, according to their reputation, clinical results, original research publications and quotations. They were asked to detail their actual practice in terms of IE antibiotic treatment in various bacteriological and clinical situations. They were also asked to declare their IE-related in-hospital mortality for the year 2015.

RESULTS

The global compliance with guidelines concerning antibiotic therapy was 58%, revealing the differences between theoretical 'consensus', local recommendations and actual practice. Some conflicts of interest were also probably expressed. The adherence to guidelines was 100% when the protocol was simple, and decreased with the seriousness of the situation (Staphylococus spp. 54%-62%) or in blood-culture-negative endocarditis (0%-15%) that requires adaptation to clinical and epidemiological data.

CONCLUSION

Worldwide experts in IE management, although the majority of them were involved and co-signed the guidelines, do not follow international consensus guidelines on the particular point of the use of antibiotics.

The causative agents in infective endocarditis: a systematic review comprising 33,214 cases

Infective endocarditis (IE) incidence remains high with considerable fatality rates; guidelines for prophylaxis against IE are currently under review in some settings which highlights the importance of maintaining up-to-date epidemiological estimates about the most common microbial causes. The objective of this systematic review, following PRISMA guidelines, was to identify the most common microbial causes of IE in recent years. Medline was searched from January 1, 2003 to March 31, 2013 for all articles containing the term "infective endocarditis". All relevant studies reporting diagnostic results were included. Special patient subpopulations were assessed separately. A total of 105 studies were included, from 36 countries, with available data on a total of 33,214 cases. Staphylococcus aureus was found to be the most common microorganism, being the most frequent in 54.3 % of studies (N = 57) (and in 55.4 % of studies using Duke's criteria for diagnosis [N = 51]). Viridans group streptococci (VGS), coagulase-negative staphylococci (CoNS), Enterococcus spp and Streptococcus bovis were among the most common causes. S. aureus was the most common pathogen in almost all population subgroups; however, this was not the case in patients with implantable devices, prosthetic valves, or immunocompromised non-HIV, as well as in the sub-group from Asia, emphasizing that a global one-size-fits-all approach to the management of suspected IE is not appropriate. This review provides an evidence-based map of the most common causative agents of IE, highlighting S. aureus as the leading cause in the 21st century. The changing epidemiology of IE in some patient sub-groups in the last decade and the very high number of microbiologically undiagnosed cases (26.6 %) suggest the need to revisit IE prophylaxis and diagnostic strategies.

Switch to oral antibiotics in the treatment of infective endocarditis is not associated with increased risk of mortality in non-severely ill patients

Although many international guidelines exist for the management of infective endocarditis (IE), recommendations are lacking on the opportunity of switching antibiotics from the intravenous (IV) to oral route during treatment. We present a cohort study of 426 cases of IE over a period of 13 years (2000-2012), including 369 cases of definite IE according to the Duke criteria. Predictors of mortality were identified using the Cox proportional hazard analysis. The median (range) age at diagnosis was 64.5 (7-98) years. One hundred six patients (25%) had healthcare-associated IE. Oral streptococci (n = 99, 23%) and Staphylococcus aureus (n = 81, 19%) were the predominant microorganisms. Ninety-two patients (22%) died during follow-up. After an initial phase of IV antibiotherapy, 214 patients (50%) were switched to oral route a median (range) of 21 (0-70) days after diagnosis of IE. Patients in the oral group had fewer comorbidities, and criteria of severity at inclusion and were less frequently infected by S. aureus. Oral antibiotics were amoxicillin alone in 109 cases or a combination therapy of clindamycin, fluoroquinolone, rifampicin and/or amoxicillin in 46 cases, according to the susceptibility of the microorganisms. In the multivariate analysis, a switch to oral route was not associated with an increased risk of mortality. During follow-up, only two relapses and four reinfections were observed in the oral group (compared to nine and eight in the IV group, respectively). In this study, switching to oral administration was not associated with an increased risk of relapse or reinfection. These promising results need to be confirmed by prospective studies.

How do physicians cope with controversial topics in existing guidelines for the management of infective endocarditis? Results of an international survey

International guidelines are available to help physicians prescribe appropriate antibiotic regimens to patients with infective endocarditis (IE). However some topics of these guidelines are controversial. We conducted an international survey to assess physicians' adherence to these guidelines, focusing on these controversial items. An invitation to participate to a 15-question online survey was sent in 2012-2013 to European Society of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases (ESCMID) members, scientific societies and corresponding authors of publications on IE mentioned in PubMed from 1990 to 2012, inclusive. Eight hundred thirty-seven physicians participated in the survey, and 625 (74.7%) completed it over the first question. The results showed great heterogeneity of practices. Claiming to follow guidelines was marginally associated with more guideline-based strategies. Gentamicin use depended on causative pathogens (p <0.001) and physician specialty (p 0.02). Eighty-six per cent of the physicians favoured vancomycin alone or in combination with gentamicin or rifampicin as a first-line treatment for left-sided native valve methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus IE, 31% considered switching to oral therapy as a therapeutic option and 33% used the ampicillin and ceftriaxone combination for enterococcal IE as a first-line therapy. Physician specialty significantly affected the choice of a therapeutic strategy, while practicing in a university hospital or the number of years of practice had virtually no impact. Our survey, the largest on IE treatment, underscores important heterogeneity in practices for treatment of IE. Nonetheless, physicians who do not follow guidelines can have rational strategies that are based on the literature. These results could inform the revision of future guidelines and identify unmet needs for future studies.

Successful Oral Ciprofloxacin Therapy of Neisseria elongata Endocarditis

Objective: To report successful oral ciprofloxacin therapy for Neisseria elongata endocarditis. Case Summary: A patient with N elongata endocarditis refused parenteral therapy, but his infection completely resolved with 7 weeks of oral ciprofloxacin. Discussion: This patient’s refusal of parenteral therapy prompted the use of oral ciprofloxacin because it is well absorbed and was expected to be very active against his organism. His infection resolved and did not relapse. Although successful oral therapy has been reported for endocarditis caused by Staphylococcus aureus, primarily in injection drug users, completely oral therapy for other organisms has not been previously described. Conclusions: When parenteral therapy is not possible, oral administration of highly active, well-absorbed antibiotics may be effective for selected cases of endocarditis caused by susceptible organisms.