Key result
Intensified perioperative prophylaxis cuts coagulase-negative staphylococci by ~35% vs standard prophylaxis in CIED infections.
Why the study?
The PADIT trial showed that intensifying perioperative prophylaxis did not significantly reduce CIED infections, prompting this evaluation of how the choice of prophylaxis impacted the microbiology of device infections.
Does intensification of perioperative prophylaxis alter the microbiology of CIED infections in patients undergoing device implantation?
RCT (n=177)
Does intensification of perioperative prophylaxis alter the microbiology of CIED infections in patients undergoing device implantation?
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Intensification of perioperative prophylaxis for CIED implantation alters the microbiology of subsequent infections, reducing the proportion of coagulase-negative staphylococci but increasing their cefazolin resistance.
Background The Prevention of Arrhythmia Device Infection Trial (PADIT) investigated whether intensification of perioperative prophylaxis could prevent cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED) infections. Compared with a single dose of cefazolin, the perioperative administration of cefazolin, vancomycin, bacitracin, and cephalexin did not significantly decrease the risk of infection. Our objective was to compare the microbiology of infections between study arms in PADIT. Methods This was a post hoc analysis. Differences between study arms in the microbiology of infections were assessed at the level of individual patients and at the level of microorganisms using the Fisher exact test. Results Overall, 209 microorganisms were reported from 177 patients. The most common microorganisms were coagulase-negative staphylococci (CoNS; 82/209 [39.2%]) and S. aureus (75/209 [35.9%]). There was a significantly lower proportion of CoNS in the incremental arm compared with the standard arm (30.1% vs 46.6%; P = .04). However, there was no significant difference between study arms in the frequency of recovery of other microorganisms. In terms of antimicrobial susceptibility, 26.5% of microorganisms were resistant to cefazolin. CoNS were more likely to be cefazolin-resistant in the incremental arm (52.2% vs 26.8%, respectively; P = .05). However, there was no difference between study arms in terms of infections in which the main pathogen was sensitive to cefazolin (77.8% vs 64.3%; P = .10) or vancomycin (90.8% vs 90.2%; P = .90). Conclusions Intensification of the prophylaxis led to significant changes in the microbiology of infections, despite the absence of a decrease in the overall risk of infections. These findings provide important insight on the physiopathology of CIED infections. Trial registration NCT01002911.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Longtin et al. (2021) conducted an RCT in Cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED) infections (n=177). Intensification of perioperative prophylaxis (cefazolin, vancomycin, bacitracin, and cephalexin) vs. Standard prophylaxis (single dose of cefazolin) was evaluated on Proportion of coagulase-negative staphylococci (CoNS) among recovered microorganisms (p=.04). Intensification of perioperative prophylaxis significantly reduced the proportion of coagulase-negative staphylococci compared with standard prophylaxis (30.1% vs 46.6%; P=.04) in CIED infections.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: