Clinical and molecular epidemiology of infective endocarditis in intravenous drug users

Burden of infective endocarditis in an Australian cohort of people who inject drugs

BACKGROUND

Infective endocarditis (IE) results in substantial morbidity and mortality in people who inject drugs (PWID).

AIMS

To describe the burden of IE and its outcomes in PWID.

METHODS

Retrospective cohort study of adults admitted to a tertiary referral centre in Melbourne, Australia, with IE due to injection drug use from 1997 to 2015.

RESULTS

Ninety-seven PWID with 127 episodes of IE were identified with a median acute inpatient stay of 37 days (1-84). Admission to an intensive care unit was required in 67/127 (53%) episodes. Twenty-seven percent (34/127) of episodes occurred in patients with a previous episode of endocarditis. One third (43/127, 34%) of episodes involved left-sided cardiac valves. Antimicrobial treatment was completed in 88 (70%) episodes. Valve surgery was performed in 25/127 (20%) episodes. Predictors of surgery in univariable analysis were left-sided cardiac involvement (risk ratio (RR) 6.0), severe valvular regurgitation (RR 2.6) and cardiac failure (RR 2.2) (all P < 0.005). Twenty (16%) episodes resulted in death. Predictors of mortality on univariable analysis were left-sided cardiac involvement (RR 6.4), and not completing treatment (RR 0.12; both P < 0.001). The average estimated cost per episode was AU$74 168.

CONCLUSIONS

IE causes a considerable burden of disease in PWID, with significant healthcare utilisation and cost. Surgery and death are not infrequent complications. In addition to ensuring completion of antimicrobial therapy, strategies such as opioid maintenance programmes may be useful in improving health outcomes for PWID.

Case report: right-sided native endocarditis presenting with multiple abscess formations [care compliant]

INTRODUCTION

Right-sided native endocarditis is a difficult case with fewer cardiac symptoms and fewer classic signs of cutaneous vascular lesions compared with left-sided endocarditis.

PATIENT CONCERNS

A 68-year-old Taiwanese man with a history of gouty arthritis, hyperlipidemia, and adrenal insufficiency presented to our ED and complained dyspnea and low back pain for 1 month.

DIAGNOSIS ASSESSMENT

The PE showed bilateral crackles on chest auscultation and a palpable fluctuant mass over the anterior chest wall. The chest and abdominal CT scan showed multiple abscess formations involving pulmonary, sternal, and paraspinal areas. The TEE being performed and an oscillating mass over the anterior and septal leaflets of the tricuspid valve and moderate tricuspid regurgitation.

INTERVENTIONS

Only pharmacologic treatment without surgical interventions.

OUTCOMES

Deceased, patient expired on day 4 after ED visit.

CONCLUSION

This case arose as a sequela of staphylococcal endocarditis associated with persistent bacteremia and immunological dysregulation. The diagnosis of right-sided endocarditis is easily missing, multidisciplinary approach should be triggered as soon as possible, which might lead to a better outcome. Right-sided IE is still an important public health issue in southern Taiwan.

Staphylococcus Aureus Endocarditis associated with Injecting New Psychoactive Substances

Background

Staphylococcus aureus infective endocarditis (IE) associated with injection of new psychoactive substances (NPS) in Edinburgh from 2014 to 2016 was observed. We compared these infections with a series of S. aureus IE cases in a non-injecting population within Edinburgh.

Methods

NPS-associated S. aureus IE diagnosed between 1 January 2014 and 31 May 2016 in persons who inject drugs (PWID) were compared with a series of S. aureus IE cases from non-PWID.

Results

There was a fourfold increase in the annual incidence of S. aureus IE, mainly due to NPS use in PWID. A larger vegetation diameter was seen on echocardiogram in PWID vs non-PWID (median 1.7 cm vs 0.65 cm; p = 0.009) with more embolic complications in PWID (15 PWID vs 1 non-PWID; p = 2.1 x 10-7) but no difference in 90-day mortality (2 PWID vs 4 non-PWID; p = 0.39).

Conclusions

NPS-associated S. aureus IE correlated with complications, such as deep organ embolic abscesses, that were different from non-PWID S. aureus IE. The alarming increase in incidence resolved with targeted public health and legislative measures.

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.

A comparison of different antibiotic regimens for the treatment of infective endocarditis

BACKGROUND

Infective endocarditis is a microbial infection of the endocardial surface of the heart. Antibiotics are the cornerstone of treatment, but their use is not standardised, due to the differences in presentation, populations affected and the wide variety of micro-organisms that can be responsible.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the existing evidence about the clinical benefits and harms of different antibiotics regimens used to treat people with infective endocarditis.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE Classic and EMBASE, LILACS, CINAHL and the Conference Proceedings Citation Index on 30 April 2015. We also searched three trials registers and handsearched the reference lists of included papers. We applied no language restrictions.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials assessing the effects of antibiotic regimens for treating possible infective endocarditis diagnosed according to modified Duke's criteria. We considered all-cause mortality, cure rates and adverse events as the primary outcomes. We excluded people with possible infective endocarditis and pregnant women.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Three review authors independently performed study selection, 'Risk of bias' assessment and data extraction in duplicate. We constructed 'Summary of findings' tables and used GRADE methodology to assess the quality of studies. We described the included studies narratively.

MAIN RESULTS

Four small randomised controlled trials involving 728 allocated/224 analysed participants met our inclusion criteria. These trials had a high risk of bias. Drug companies sponsored two of the trials. We were unable to pool the data due to the heterogeneity in outcome definitions and the different antibiotics used.The included trials compared the following antibiotic schedules. The first trial compared quinolone (levofloxacin) plus standard treatment (anti-staphylococcal penicillin (cloxacillin or dicloxacillin), aminoglycoside (tobramycin or netilmicin) and rifampicin) versus standard treatment alone reporting uncertain effects on all-cause mortality (8/31 (26%) with levofloxacin plus standard treatment versus 9/39 (23%) with standard treatment alone; RR 1.12, 95% CI 0.49 to 2.56, very low quality evidence). The second trial compared daptomycin versus low-dose gentamicin plus an anti-staphylococcal penicillin (nafcillin, oxacillin or flucloxacillin) or vancomycin. This showed uncertain effects in terms of cure rates (9/28 (32.1%) with daptomycin versus 9/25 (36%) with low-dose gentamicin plus anti-staphylococcal penicillin or vancomycin, RR 0.89 95% CI 0.42 to 1.89; very low quality evidence). The third trial compared cloxacillin plus gentamicin with a glycopeptide (vancomycin or teicoplanin) plus gentamicin. In participants receiving gentamycin plus glycopeptide only 13/23 (56%) were cured versus 11/11 (100%) receiving cloxacillin plus gentamicin (RR 0.59, 95% CI 0.40 to 0.85; very low quality evidence). The fourth trial compared ceftriaxone plus gentamicin versus ceftriaxone alone and found no conclusive differences in terms of cure (15/34 (44%) with ceftriaxone plus gentamicin versus 21/33 (64%) with ceftriaxone alone, RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.44 to 1.10; very low quality evidence).The trials reported adverse events, need for cardiac surgical interventions, uncontrolled infection and relapse of endocarditis and found no conclusive differences between comparison groups (very low quality evidence). No trials assessed septic emboli or quality of life.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Limited and very low quality evidence suggested that there were no conclusive differences between antibiotic regimens in terms of cure rates or other relevant clinical outcomes. However, because of the very low quality evidence, this needs confirmation. The conclusion of this Cochrane review was based on randomised controlled trials with high risk of bias. Accordingly, current evidence does not support or reject any regimen of antibiotic therapy for treatment of infective endocarditis.

Acute endocarditis in intravenous drug users: a case report and literature review

Infective endocarditis (IE) is a notorious complication of intravenous drug use (IDU). It typically affects the cardiac valves. Among these, the tricuspid is the most common affected valve, although the mitral and/or aortic valves can also be involved. Methicillin sensitive staphylococcus aureus (MSSA) is the most common etiological microbial agent of IE in IDU. Once IE is diagnosed, antibiotic treatment should start immediately after blood cultures have been obtained. However, IE in this particular patient population is more difficult to treat, and has a high recurrence rate compared to other patient populations, because of continuing IDU and medical non-compliance. Here, we present an interesting case of IE in a relatively young IDU patient with severe MSSA positive sepsis. The updated diagnostic and treatment strategies, as well as the ethical issues involved in the management of IE patients in the setting of current active IDU will also be discussed.