联合治疗与单一治疗:抗生素治疗肠球菌性心内膜炎的回顾性分析。

IF 3.4 3区 医学 Q2 INFECTIOUS DISEASES
Razan Saman, Christopher P Primus, Robert West, Simon J Woldman, Jonathan A T Sandoe
{"title":"联合治疗与单一治疗:抗生素治疗肠球菌性心内膜炎的回顾性分析。","authors":"Razan Saman, Christopher P Primus, Robert West, Simon J Woldman, Jonathan A T Sandoe","doi":"10.1186/s12879-025-10451-2","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Guidelines suggest treating fully penicillin-susceptible Enterococcus faecalis strains causing infective endocarditis with amoxicillin combined with gentamicin or ceftriaxone, but clinical evidence to support this practice is limited and monotherapy cohorts were excluded from studies. We describe antibiotic treatment, complications, and outcomes in patients with Enterococcus faecalis infective endocarditis, specifically comparing monotherapy versus combination therapy.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Retrospective analysis of prospectively collected cohort of patients with definite or possible infective endocarditis from 2 English centres between 2006 and 2021. The primary outcome was 30-day mortality. Secondary outcomes included acute kidney injury, relapse, and clinical cure.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>178 individuals were included: median age was 72 years (interquartile range 60-79), male sex majority (138, 78%) and mostly native valve endocarditis (108, 61%). Thirty-nine patients (22%) received monotherapy (penicillin/glycopeptide/linezolid/daptomycin), 128 (72%) combination with gentamicin, 11 (6%) combination with ceftriaxone. Patients on combination therapy with gentamicin had a statistically significant lower 30-day mortality than those treated with monotherapy (21 (16.4%) versus 15 (38.5%) p = 0.035) and higher rates of clinical cure (101 (78.9%) versus 23 (59.0%) p = 0.018). Patient receiving gentamicin were more likely to experience acute kidney injury (64 (50%) versus 11 (28.2%) p = 0.057). Ceftriaxone combination was associated with poor outcomes, but the sample size was small.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Patients treated with combination gentamicin therapy had better clinical outcomes than patients treated with monotherapy. Low-dose gentamicin regimens were associated with acute kidney injury. Patients treated with combinations were different to those treated with monotherapy and confounding remains a concern with observational analyses. An adequately powered clinical trial is needed to determine optimal treatment of enterococcal endocarditis.</p><p><strong>Clinical trial number: </strong>Not applicable.</p>","PeriodicalId":8981,"journal":{"name":"BMC Infectious Diseases","volume":"25 1","pages":"92"},"PeriodicalIF":3.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11748874/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Combination therapy versus monotherapy: retrospective analysis of antibiotic treatment of enterococcal endocarditis.\",\"authors\":\"Razan Saman, Christopher P Primus, Robert West, Simon J Woldman, Jonathan A T Sandoe\",\"doi\":\"10.1186/s12879-025-10451-2\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Guidelines suggest treating fully penicillin-susceptible Enterococcus faecalis strains causing infective endocarditis with amoxicillin combined with gentamicin or ceftriaxone, but clinical evidence to support this practice is limited and monotherapy cohorts were excluded from studies. We describe antibiotic treatment, complications, and outcomes in patients with Enterococcus faecalis infective endocarditis, specifically comparing monotherapy versus combination therapy.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Retrospective analysis of prospectively collected cohort of patients with definite or possible infective endocarditis from 2 English centres between 2006 and 2021. The primary outcome was 30-day mortality. Secondary outcomes included acute kidney injury, relapse, and clinical cure.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>178 individuals were included: median age was 72 years (interquartile range 60-79), male sex majority (138, 78%) and mostly native valve endocarditis (108, 61%). Thirty-nine patients (22%) received monotherapy (penicillin/glycopeptide/linezolid/daptomycin), 128 (72%) combination with gentamicin, 11 (6%) combination with ceftriaxone. Patients on combination therapy with gentamicin had a statistically significant lower 30-day mortality than those treated with monotherapy (21 (16.4%) versus 15 (38.5%) p = 0.035) and higher rates of clinical cure (101 (78.9%) versus 23 (59.0%) p = 0.018). Patient receiving gentamicin were more likely to experience acute kidney injury (64 (50%) versus 11 (28.2%) p = 0.057). Ceftriaxone combination was associated with poor outcomes, but the sample size was small.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Patients treated with combination gentamicin therapy had better clinical outcomes than patients treated with monotherapy. Low-dose gentamicin regimens were associated with acute kidney injury. Patients treated with combinations were different to those treated with monotherapy and confounding remains a concern with observational analyses. An adequately powered clinical trial is needed to determine optimal treatment of enterococcal endocarditis.</p><p><strong>Clinical trial number: </strong>Not applicable.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":8981,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"BMC Infectious Diseases\",\"volume\":\"25 1\",\"pages\":\"92\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-01-20\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11748874/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"BMC Infectious Diseases\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12879-025-10451-2\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"INFECTIOUS DISEASES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BMC Infectious Diseases","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12879-025-10451-2","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"INFECTIOUS DISEASES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:指南建议用阿莫西林联合庆大霉素或头孢曲松治疗引起感染性心内膜炎的完全青霉素敏感的粪肠球菌菌株,但支持这种做法的临床证据有限,且研究排除了单药治疗队列。我们描述了粪肠球菌感染性心内膜炎患者的抗生素治疗、并发症和结果,特别比较了单药治疗和联合治疗。方法:回顾性分析2006年至2021年间前瞻性收集的2个英国中心确诊或可能患有感染性心内膜炎的患者队列。主要终点为30天死亡率。次要结局包括急性肾损伤、复发和临床治愈。结果:纳入178例患者:中位年龄为72岁(四分位数范围为60-79),男性居多(138,78%),多数为先天性心内膜炎(108,61%)。单药治疗(青霉素/糖肽/利奈唑胺/达托霉素)39例(22%),联合庆大霉素128例(72%),联合头孢曲松11例(6%)。与单药治疗相比,联合庆大霉素治疗患者的30天死亡率有统计学意义(21例(16.4%)比15例(38.5%)p = 0.035),临床治愈率更高(101例(78.9%)比23例(59.0%)p = 0.018)。接受庆大霉素治疗的患者更容易发生急性肾损伤(64例(50%)vs 11例(28.2%)p = 0.057)。头孢曲松联合用药与不良预后相关,但样本量较小。结论:庆大霉素联合治疗的临床疗效优于单药治疗。小剂量庆大霉素治疗与急性肾损伤相关。联合治疗的患者与单药治疗的患者不同,观察性分析仍然存在混淆问题。需要一个足够有力的临床试验来确定肠球菌性心内膜炎的最佳治疗方法。临床试验号:不适用。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Combination therapy versus monotherapy: retrospective analysis of antibiotic treatment of enterococcal endocarditis.

Background: Guidelines suggest treating fully penicillin-susceptible Enterococcus faecalis strains causing infective endocarditis with amoxicillin combined with gentamicin or ceftriaxone, but clinical evidence to support this practice is limited and monotherapy cohorts were excluded from studies. We describe antibiotic treatment, complications, and outcomes in patients with Enterococcus faecalis infective endocarditis, specifically comparing monotherapy versus combination therapy.

Methods: Retrospective analysis of prospectively collected cohort of patients with definite or possible infective endocarditis from 2 English centres between 2006 and 2021. The primary outcome was 30-day mortality. Secondary outcomes included acute kidney injury, relapse, and clinical cure.

Results: 178 individuals were included: median age was 72 years (interquartile range 60-79), male sex majority (138, 78%) and mostly native valve endocarditis (108, 61%). Thirty-nine patients (22%) received monotherapy (penicillin/glycopeptide/linezolid/daptomycin), 128 (72%) combination with gentamicin, 11 (6%) combination with ceftriaxone. Patients on combination therapy with gentamicin had a statistically significant lower 30-day mortality than those treated with monotherapy (21 (16.4%) versus 15 (38.5%) p = 0.035) and higher rates of clinical cure (101 (78.9%) versus 23 (59.0%) p = 0.018). Patient receiving gentamicin were more likely to experience acute kidney injury (64 (50%) versus 11 (28.2%) p = 0.057). Ceftriaxone combination was associated with poor outcomes, but the sample size was small.

Conclusion: Patients treated with combination gentamicin therapy had better clinical outcomes than patients treated with monotherapy. Low-dose gentamicin regimens were associated with acute kidney injury. Patients treated with combinations were different to those treated with monotherapy and confounding remains a concern with observational analyses. An adequately powered clinical trial is needed to determine optimal treatment of enterococcal endocarditis.

Clinical trial number: Not applicable.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
BMC Infectious Diseases
BMC Infectious Diseases 医学-传染病学
CiteScore
6.50
自引率
0.00%
发文量
860
审稿时长
3.3 months
期刊介绍: BMC Infectious Diseases is an open access, peer-reviewed journal that considers articles on all aspects of the prevention, diagnosis and management of infectious and sexually transmitted diseases in humans, as well as related molecular genetics, pathophysiology, and epidemiology.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信