Current clinical practice in antibiotic treatment of Staphylococcus aureus bacteraemia: results from a survey in five European countries

OBJECTIVES

To determine clinical practice variation and identify knowledge gaps in antibiotic treatment of Staphylococcus aureus bacteraemia (SAB).

METHODS

A web-based survey with questions addressing antibiotic treatment of SAB was distributed through the ESGAP network among infectious disease specialists, clinical microbiologists and internists in Croatia, France, Greece, the Netherlands and the UK between July 2021 and November 2021.

RESULTS

A total number of 1687 respondents opened the survey link, of whom 677 (40%) answered at least one question. For MSSA and MRSA bacteraemia, 98% and 94% preferred initial monotherapy, respectively. In patients with SAB and non-removable infected prosthetic material, between 80% and 90% would use rifampicin as part of the treatment. For bone and joint infections, 65%-77% of respondents would consider oral step-down therapy, but for endovascular infections only 12%-32% would. Respondents recommended widely varying treatment durations for SAB with different foci of infection. Overall, 48% stated they used 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography/CT (18F-FDG-PET/CT) to guide antibiotic treatment duration. Persistent bacteraemia was the only risk factor for complicated SAB that would prompt a majority to extend treatment from 2 to 4-6 weeks.

CONCLUSIONS

This survey in five European countries shows considerable clinical practice variation between and within countries in the antibiotic management of SAB, in particular regarding oral step-down therapy, choice of oral antibiotic agents, treatment duration and use of 18F-FDG-PET/CT. Physicians use varying criteria for treatment decisions, as evidence from clinical trials is often lacking. These areas of practice variation could be used to prioritize future studies for further improvement of SAB care.

Surgical treatment of infected aortic grafts

An infection of an aortic prosthesis is a severe condition with high morbidity and mortality rates. Surgical treatment of an infected aortic graft or infected aortic stent-graft focuses on treatment of the infection and maintaining or restoring perfusion of the lower limbs. Over the years various reconstruction options have been introduced, each claiming to be the most successful in securing lower limb perfusion. Consensus about the optimum treatment strategy is lacking. The frail patient population and the relative rarity of the disease limits research on this topic which is an important reason for this lack of consensus. In order to determine which of the various treatment options is the most suitable to treat aortic graft infections, this systematic review was conducted of the available literature of the last 20 years. The search strategy and data collection were based on the guidelines of the Meta-analysis Of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (MOOSE). Appropriate inclusion and exclusion criteria were defined. A total of 862 possibly relevant papers were identified. After applying the in- and exclusion, data on mortality, morbidity and complications were extracted from a total of 93 papers. This review covers the various surgical treatment options available in the treatment of infected aortic (stent) grafts. Strategies concerning graft excision are discussed as are the advantages and disadvantages of the extra-anatomic reconstruction and its counterpart, the in situ reconstruction (using antibiotic-impregnated grafts, autologous vein grafts, fresh or cryopreserved allografts, and silver impregnated grafts). Available evidence was summarized and used to construct a clinical decision flowchart. All reconstruction options seem to have their pros and cons, and all have their use in specific situations. The treatment of infected aortic grafts must therefore be tailor-made.