scholarly journals A Comparison of Cefazolin Versus Ceftriaxone for the Treatment of Methicillin-Susceptible Staphylococcus aureus Bacteremia in a Tertiary Care VA Medical Center

2018 ◽  
Vol 5 (5) ◽  
Author(s):  
Dustin R Carr ◽  
Usha Stiefel ◽  
Robert A Bonomo ◽  
Christopher J Burant ◽  
Sharanie V Sims
Keyword(s):  
Staphylococcus Aureus ◽  
Treatment Failure ◽  
Medical Center ◽  
Tertiary Care ◽  
Skilled Nursing Facility ◽  
Suppressive Therapy ◽  
Published Data ◽  
Outpatient Parenteral Antimicrobial Therapy ◽  
Staphylococcus Aureus Bacteremia ◽  
Population Potential

Abstract Background Cefazolin and ceftriaxone are frequently used to treat methicillin-susceptible Staphylococcus aureus (MSSA) bacteremia, especially in the realm of outpatient parenteral antimicrobial therapy. Both antimicrobials have been associated with favorable clinical outcomes for mixed MSSA infections. However, limited published data exist specifically comparing the use of these agents for the treatment of MSSA bacteremia. Methods We conducted a retrospective cohort study of Veteran patients with MSSA bacteremia who received ≥14 days of cefazolin or ceftriaxone between 2009 and 2014. Rates of treatment failure were compared between both groups. Treatment failure was defined as therapy extension, incomplete therapy, unplanned oral suppressive therapy, relapse of infection, or hospital admission or surgery within 90 days. Results Out of 71 patients, 38 received treatment with cefazolin and 33 with ceftriaxone. The overall rate of treatment failure was 40.8%, with significantly more failures among patients receiving ceftriaxone (54.5% versus 28.9%; P = .029). Factors associated with treatment failure included longer duration of parenteral therapy, heart failure, and treatment in an external skilled nursing facility as compared with treatment in the Department of Veterans Affairs attached Community Living Center. Conclusions Ceftriaxone had a higher rate of treatment failure than cefazolin for the treatment of MSSA bacteremia in a Veteran population. Potential reasons for this could include the higher protein binding of ceftriaxone, ultimately resulting in lower serum concentrations of free drug, or other unknown factors. Further studies are warranted to confirm these results.

scholarly journals Is Cefazolin Inferior to Nafcillin for Treatment of Methicillin-Susceptible Staphylococcus aureus Bacteremia?

2011 ◽  
Vol 55 (11) ◽  
pp. 5122-5126 ◽  
Author(s):  
Shinwon Lee ◽  
Pyoeng Gyun Choe ◽  
Kyoung-Ho Song ◽  
Sang-Won Park ◽  
Hong Bin Kim ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Staphylococcus Aureus ◽  
Treatment Failure ◽  
Propensity Scores ◽  
Tertiary Care ◽  
Care Hospital ◽  
Clinical Failure ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Staphylococcus Aureus Bacteremia ◽  
Matched Case ◽  
Control Study

ABSTRACTAbout 20% of methicillin-susceptibleStaphylococcus aureus(MSSA) isolates have a substantial inoculum effect with cefazolin, suggesting that cefazolin treatment may be associated with clinical failure for serious MSSA infections. There are no well-matched controlled studies comparing cefazolin with nafcillin for the treatment of MSSA bacteremia. A retrospective propensity-score-matched case-control study was performed from 2004 to 2009 in a tertiary care hospital where nafcillin was unavailable from August 2004 to August 2006. The cefazolin group (n= 49) included MSSA-bacteremic patients treated with cefazolin during the period of nafcillin unavailability, while the nafcillin group (n= 84) comprised those treated with nafcillin. Treatment failure was defined as a composite outcome of a change of antibiotics due to clinical failure, relapse, and mortality. Of 133 patients, 41 patients from each group were matched by propensity scores. There were no significant differences in baseline characteristics between the matched groups. The treatment failure rates were not significantly different at 4 or 12 weeks (10% [4/41] versus 10% [4/41] at 4 weeks [P> 0.99] and 15% [6/41] versus 15% [6/41] at 12 weeks [P> 0.99]). Cefazolin treatment was interrupted less frequently than nafcillin treatment due to drug adverse events (0% versus 17%;P= 0.02). Cefazolin had clinical efficacy similar to that of nafcillin and was more tolerable than nafcillin for the treatment of MSSA bacteremia.

scholarly journals Prior Vancomycin Use Is a Risk Factor for Reduced Vancomycin Susceptibility in Methicillin-Susceptible but Not Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus Bacteremia

2012 ◽  
Vol 33 (2) ◽  
pp. 160-166 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kara B. Mascitti ◽  
Paul H. Edelstein ◽  
Neil O. Fishman ◽  
Knashawn H. Morales ◽  
Andrew J. Baltus ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Staphylococcus Aureus ◽  
Medical Center ◽  
Tertiary Care ◽  
Methicillin Resistant ◽  
Staphylococcus Aureus Bacteremia ◽  
Tertiary Care Medical Center ◽  
Healthcare Acquired Infections ◽  
Mrsa Infection ◽  
Substantial Morbidity ◽  
Mssa Infection

Objective.Staphylococcus aureus is a cause of community- and healthcare-acquired infections and is associated with substantial morbidity, mortality, and costs. Vancomycin minimum inhibitory concentrations (MICs) among S. aureus have increased, and reduced vancomycin susceptibility (RVS) may be associated with treatment failure. We aimed to identify clinical risk factors for RVS in S. aureus bacteremia.Design.Case-control.Setting.Academic tertiary care medical center and affiliated urban community hospital.Patients.Cases were patients with RVS S. aureus isolates (defined as vancomycin E-test MIC >1.0 μg/mL). Controls were patients with non-RVS S. aureus isolates.Results.Of 392 subjects, 134 (34.2%) had RVS. Fifty-eight of 202 patients (28.7%) with methicillin-susceptible S. aureus (MSSA) isolates had RVS, and 76 of 190 patients (40.0%) with methicillin-resistant S. aureus (MRSA) isolates had RVS (P = .02). In unadjusted analyses, prior vancomycin use was associated with RVS (odds ratio [OR], 2.08; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.00–4.32; P = .046). In stratified analyses, there was significant effect modification by methicillin susceptibility on the association between vancomycin use and RVS (P = .04). In multivariate analyses, after hospital of admission and prior levofloxacin use were controlled for, the association between vancomycin use and RVS was significant for patients with MSSA infection (adjusted OR, 4.02; 95% CI, 1.11–14.50) but not MRSA infection (adjusted OR, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.36–2.13).Conclusions.A substantial proportion of patients with S. aureus bacteremia had RVS. The association between prior vancomycin use and RVS was significant for patients with MSSA infection but not MRSA infection, suggesting a complex relationship between the clinical and molecular epidemiology of RVS in S. aureus.Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2012;33(2):160-166

scholarly journals 301. Penicillin Versus Cefazolin or Anti-staphylococcal Penicillins for Penicillin-Susceptible Staphylococcus aureus Bacteremia

2020 ◽  
Vol 7 (Supplement_1) ◽  
pp. S149-S149
Author(s):  
Mohammed Aldhaeefi ◽  
Jeffrey Pearson ◽  
Sanjat Kanjilal ◽  
Brandon Dionne
Keyword(s):  
Staphylococcus Aureus ◽  
Blood Culture ◽  
Positive Blood Culture ◽  
Medical Center ◽  
Academic Medical Center ◽  
Similar Distribution ◽  
Clinical Failure ◽  
Staphylococcus Aureus Bacteremia ◽  
Definitive Therapy ◽  
Significant Difference

Abstract Background Staphylococcus aureus bacteremia is a significant cause of mortality. Penicillin (PCN) may have a role in the treatment of penicillin-susceptible Staphylococcus aureus (PSSA) bacteremia as it has a narrower spectrum of activity than cefazolin and is better tolerated than antistaphylococcal penicillins (ASPs). The aim of this study is to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of PCN versus cefazolin or ASPs in the treatment of PSSA bacteremia. Methods This is a single-center, retrospective study at a tertiary academic medical center. All patients with a PSSA blood culture from January 1, 2012 to September 1, 2019 were screened. Patients were excluded if they were treated with a definitive antibiotic (defined as antimicrobial therapy received 72 hours after positive blood culture) other than the study comparators, or if they received combination antibiotic therapy >72 hours from the initial positive blood culture result. The primary outcome was 60-day clinical failure, which was a composite endpoint of change in antibiotic after 72 hours of definitive therapy, recurrence of PSSA bacteremia, infection-related readmission, or all-cause mortality. Results Of 277 patients with PSSA bacteremia, 101 patients were included in the study; 62 (61%) were male and 11 (11%) had a β-lactam allergy. At baseline, 40 patients (40%) had hardware, 25 (25%) had an intravenous line, 6 (6%) were on dialysis, and 4 (4%) had active IV drug use, with similar distribution across antibiotic groups. Penicillin was the most common antibiotic used (Table 1). There was a significant difference among groups with respect to the 60-day clinical failure (log-rank p=0.019). In terms of unadjusted 60-day clinical failure, penicillin had similar outcomes to cefazolin (95% CI -0.29 to 0.104, p=0.376), however, it had statistically significant better outcomes in comparison to the ASPs, nafcillin or oxacillin (95% CI 0.023 to 0.482, p=0.031) (Table 1). Table 1. 60-day outcomes of PSSA bacteremia Conclusion Penicillin is effective and safe in the treatment of PSSA bacteremia and may be preferable to antistaphylococcal penicillins Disclosures All Authors: No reported disclosures

A Prolonged Outbreak of Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus in the Burn Unit of a Tertiary Medical Center

1996 ◽  
Vol 17 (12) ◽  
pp. 798-802 ◽  
Author(s):  
Patricia A. Meier ◽  
Cheryl D. Carter ◽  
Sarah E. Wallace ◽  
Richard J. Hollis ◽  
Michael A. Pfaller ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Staphylococcus Aureus ◽  
Infection Control ◽  
Healthcare Workers ◽  
Medical Center ◽  
Tertiary Care ◽  
Chromosomal Dna ◽  
Methicillin Resistant ◽  
Persistent Problem ◽  
Tertiary Care Medical Center ◽  
Burn Unit

AbstractObjective:To report an outbreak of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) in our burn unit and the steps we used to eradicate the organism.Design And Setting:Outbreak investigation in the burn unit of a 900-bed tertiary-care medical center.Outbreak:Between March and June 1993, MRSA was isolated from 10 patients in our burn unit. All isolates had identical antibiograms and chromosomal DNA patterns.Control Measures:Infection control personnel encouraged healthcare workers to wash their hands after each patient contact. The unit cohorted all infected or colonized patients, placed each affected patient in isolation, and, if possible, transferred the patient to another unit. Despite these measures, new cases occurred. Infection control personnel obtained nares cultures from 56 healthcare workers, 3 of whom carried the epidemic MRSA strain. One healthcare worker cared for six affected patients, and one cared for five patients. We treated the three healthcare workers with mupirocin. Subsequently, no additional patients became colonized or infected with the epidemic MRSA strain.Conclusions:The outbreak ended after we treated healthcare workers who carried the epidemic strain with mupirocin. This approach is not appropriate in all settings. However, we felt it was justified in this case because of a persistent problem after less intrusive measures.

Cellulitis: Home or Inpatient Intravenous Therapy in a Veteran Population

2019 ◽  
Vol 32 (3) ◽  
pp. 127-133
Author(s):  
Rebekah A. Wahking ◽  
Bonnie Clark ◽  
Tasha Cheatham-Wilson
Keyword(s):  
Treatment Failure ◽  
Antibiotic Treatment ◽  
Inpatient Treatment ◽  
Medical Center ◽  
Retrospective Chart Review ◽  
Primary Diagnosis ◽  
Primary Objective ◽  
Outpatient Parenteral Antimicrobial Therapy ◽  
Inpatient Settings ◽  
Inpatient Group

There are few studies describing outpatient parenteral antimicrobial therapy (OPAT) for cellulitis treatment. The Hospital in Home (HIH) program is a multidisciplinary team at the Cincinnati VA Medical Center (CVAMC) that provides acute care in patients’ homes similar to inpatient hospital care for a variety of indications, including cellulitis. Efficacy of OPAT for cellulitis treatment in the HIH program has not been directly compared with inpatient treatment. The primary objective of this retrospective review is to compare the rates of efficacy of intravenous (IV) antibiotics for cellulitis treatment for patients followed by HIH and inpatient settings. Treatment failure was defined as a change in IV antibiotic medications prescribed. A retrospective chart review was completed at CVAMC for patients enrolled in HIH ( n = 111) and patients who received inpatient treatment at CVAMC ( n = 111) with IV antibiotics for a primary diagnosis of cellulitis from January 1, 2014, through June 30, 2018. Six patients in the HIH group experienced IV antibiotic treatment failure compared with 11 in the inpatient group. The HIH group showed non-inferiority in rates of treatment failure compared with the inpatient group ( p = .21). OPAT with the HIH program appears to be non-inferior to inpatient IV antibiotic treatment for cellulitis infections. Tolerance issues and rates of adverse events do not appear to be worse in patients treated with OPAT in the Veteran population.

Prospective Analysis of Staphylococcus aureus Bacteremia in Nonneutropenic Adults With Malignancy

2000 ◽  
Vol 18 (5) ◽  
pp. 1110-1110 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ajay K. Gopal ◽  
Vance G. Fowler ◽  
Manish Shah ◽  
Diane Gesty-Palmer ◽  
Kieren A. Marr ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Staphylococcus Aureus ◽  
Mortality Rate ◽  
Cancer Patients ◽  
Methicillin Resistance ◽  
Medical Center ◽  
Staphylococcus Aureus Bacteremia ◽  
Point Of Entry ◽  
Duke University ◽  
Initial Hospitalization ◽  
Overall Mortality

PURPOSE: To determine the primary sources and secondary complications of Staphylococcus aureus bacteremia (SAB) in cancer patients, as well as predictors of outcome in cancer patients with SAB.PATIENTS AND METHODS: Fifty-two patients at Duke University Medical Center met entry criteria between September 1994 and December 1996 for this prospective cohort study involving hospitalized nonneutropenic adult cancer patients with SAB. All subjects were observed throughout initial hospitalization and were evaluated again at 6 and 12 weeks or until death.RESULTS: SAB was intravascular device–related in 42%, tissue infection–related (TIR) in 44%, and unidentifiable focus–related (UFR) in 13%. Seventeen patients (33%) were found to have metastatic infections or conditions, with eight (15%) developing infectious endocarditis (IE). Patients with TIR bacteremia were less likely than other patients to develop IE (4% v 24%, P = .06). The overall mortality rate was 38%, the SAB-related mortality rate was 15%, and the rate of SAB relapse was 12%. Methicillin resistance was not associated with adverse outcome. Inability to identify a point of entry (UFR bacteremia), however, was associated with a higher overall mortality rate (100% v 24%, P = .0006). Furthermore, a 72-hour surveillance blood culture positive for organisms was associated with an increased incidence of IE (P = .0006), metastatic infections or conditions (P = .0002), SAB relapse (P = .038), and SAB-related death (P = .038).CONCLUSION: SAB in cancer patients is associated with significant morbidity from frequent metastatic infections or conditions including IE, as well as considerable mortality. Unknown initial infection site and 72-hour surveillance cultures positive for organisms were predictive of a complicated course and poor final outcome.

scholarly journals Hand Hygiene Noncompliance and the Cost of Hospital-Acquired Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus Infection

2010 ◽  
Vol 31 (4) ◽  
pp. 357-364 ◽  
Author(s):  
Keith L. Cummings ◽  
Deverick J. Anderson ◽  
Keith S. Kaye
Keyword(s):  
Staphylococcus Aureus ◽  
Hand Hygiene ◽  
Nosocomial Infection ◽  
Healthcare Worker ◽  
Medical Center ◽  
Hospital Costs ◽  
Published Data ◽  
Methicillin Resistant ◽  
Mrsa Infection ◽  
Mean Cost

Background.Hand hygiene noncompliance is a major cause of nosocomial infection. Nosocomial infection cost data exist, but the effect of hand hygiene noncompliance is unknown.Objective.To estimate methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA)-related cost of an incident of hand hygiene noncompliance by a healthcare worker during patient care.Design.Two models were created to simulate sequential patient contacts by a hand hygiene-noncompliant healthcare worker. Model 1 involved encounters with patients of unknown MRSA status. Model 2 involved an encounter with an MRSA-colonized patient followed by an encounter with a patient of unknown MRSA status. The probability of new MRSA infection for the second patient was calculated using published data. A simulation of 1 million noncompliant events was performed. Total costs of resulting infections were aggregated and amortized over all events.Setting.Duke University Medical Center, a 750-bed tertiary medical center in Durham, North Carolina.Results.Model 1 was associated with 42 MRSA infections (infection rate, 0.0042%). Mean infection cost was $47,092 (95% confidence interval [CI], $26,040–$68,146); mean cost per noncompliant event was $1.98 (95% CI, $0.91–$3.04). Model 2 was associated with 980 MRSA infections (0.098%). Mean infection cost was $53,598 (95% CI, $50,098–$57,097); mean cost per noncompliant event was $52.53 (95% CI, $47.73–$57.32). A 200-bed hospital incurs $1,779,283 in annual MRSA infection-related expenses attributable to hand hygiene noncompliance. A 1.0% increase in hand hygiene compliance resulted in annual savings of $39,650 to a 200-bed hospital.Conclusions.Hand hygiene noncompliance is associated with significant attributable hospital costs. Minimal improvements in compliance lead to substantial savings.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document