Suppressive antibiotic therapy in prosthetic joint infections: a multicentre cohort study
The aim was to describe the effectiveness of suppressive antibiotic treatment (SAT) in routine clinical practice when used in situations in which removal of a prosthetic implant is considered essential for the eradication of an infection, and it cannot be performed. This was a descriptive retrospect...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Clinical microbiology and infection 2020-04, Vol.26 (4), p.499-505 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
Zusammenfassung: | The aim was to describe the effectiveness of suppressive antibiotic treatment (SAT) in routine clinical practice when used in situations in which removal of a prosthetic implant is considered essential for the eradication of an infection, and it cannot be performed.
This was a descriptive retrospective and multicentre cohort study of prosthetic joint infection (PJI) cases managed with SAT. SAT was considered to have failed if a fistula appeared or persisted, if debridement was necessary, if the prosthesis was removed due to persistence of the infection or if uncontrolled symptoms were present.
In total, 302 patients were analysed. Two hundred and three of these patients (67.2%) received monotherapy. The most commonly used drugs were tetracyclines (39.7% of patients) (120/302) and cotrimoxazole (35.4% of patients) (107/302). SAT was considered successful in 58.6% (177/302) of the patients (median time administered, 36.5 months; IQR 20.75–59.25). Infection was controlled in 50% of patients at 5 years according to Kaplan–Meier analysis. Resistance development was documented in 15 of 65 (23.1%) of the microbiologically documented cases. SAT failure was associated with age |
---|---|
ISSN: | 1198-743X 1469-0691 |
DOI: | 10.1016/j.cmi.2019.09.007 |