Comparative efficacy of linezolid and vancomycin for endotracheal tube MRSA biofilms from ICU patients.
APACHE
Aged
Analysis of Variance
Anti-Bacterial Agents
/ standards
Biofilms
/ drug effects
Female
Humans
Intensive Care Units
/ organization & administration
Intubation, Intratracheal
/ adverse effects
Linezolid
/ standards
Male
Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus
/ drug effects
Microscopy, Electron, Scanning
/ methods
Middle Aged
Organ Dysfunction Scores
Prospective Studies
Vancomycin
/ standards
Biofilm
Endotracheal tube
Linezolid
Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus
Respiratory infection
Vancomycin
Journal
Critical care (London, England)
ISSN: 1466-609X
Titre abrégé: Crit Care
Pays: England
ID NLM: 9801902
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
10 07 2019
10 07 2019
Historique:
received:
15
04
2019
accepted:
21
06
2019
entrez:
12
7
2019
pubmed:
12
7
2019
medline:
30
1
2020
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
To compare the efficacy of systemic treatment with linezolid (LNZ) versus vancomycin (VAN) on methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) burden and eradication in endotracheal tube (ETT) biofilm and ETT cuff from orotracheally intubated patients with MRSA respiratory infection. Prospective observational clinical study was carried out at four European tertiary hospitals. Plasma and endotracheal aspirate (ETA) levels of LNZ and VAN were determined 72 h after treatment initiation through high-performance liquid chromatography or bioassay. LNZ or VAN concentration in the ETT biofilm and MRSA burden and eradication was determined upon extubation. The minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) for LNZ and VAN was assessed by E-test strips (Biomerieux®). Scanning electron microscopy images were obtained, and ETT biofilm thickness was compared between groups. Twenty-five patients, 15 treated with LNZ and 10 with VAN, were included in the study. LNZ presented a significantly higher concentration (μg/mL) than VAN in ETT biofilm (72.8 [1.3-127.1] vs 0.4 [0.4-1.3], p < 0.001), although both drugs achieved therapeutic plasma levels 72 h after treatment initiation. Systemic treatment with LNZ achieved lower ETT cuff MRSA burdens than systemic treatment with VAN. Indeed, LNZ increased the MRSA eradication rate in ETT cuff compared with VAN (LNZ 75%, VAN 20%, p = 0.031). In ICU patients with MRSA respiratory infection intubated for long periods, systemic treatment with LNZ obtains a greater beneficial effect than VAN in limiting MRSA burden in ETT cuff.
Identifiants
pubmed: 31291978
doi: 10.1186/s13054-019-2523-5
pii: 10.1186/s13054-019-2523-5
pmc: PMC6617612
doi:
Substances chimiques
Anti-Bacterial Agents
0
Vancomycin
6Q205EH1VU
Linezolid
ISQ9I6J12J
Types de publication
Journal Article
Multicenter Study
Observational Study
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
251Subventions
Organisme : CIBER de enfermedades respiratorias- Ciberes
ID : CB 06/06/0028
Pays : International
Organisme : Pfizer (US)
ID : WI173058
Pays : International
Organisme : Pfizer
ID : ASPIRE award 2011
Pays : International
Organisme : Institució Catalana de Recerca i Estudis Avançats
ID : ICREA Academy
Pays : International
Organisme : IDIBAPS
ID : 2.603
Pays : International
Organisme : Generalitat de Catalunya
ID : SGR
Pays : International
Références
Science. 1999 May 21;284(5418):1318-22
pubmed: 10334980
J Clin Microbiol. 2000 Mar;38(3):1008-15
pubmed: 10698988
Int J Antimicrob Agents. 2000 Jan;13(3):169-73
pubmed: 10724020
Trends Microbiol. 2001 Jan;9(1):34-9
pubmed: 11166241
Crit Care Med. 2004 Oct;32(10):2071-8
pubmed: 15483416
Shock. 2005 Dec;24 Suppl 1:1-6
pubmed: 16374365
Intensive Care Med. 2006 Sep;32(9):1414-8
pubmed: 16826389
Clin Infect Dis. 2007 Mar 1;44 Suppl 2:S27-72
pubmed: 17278083
Crit Care Med. 2007 Jun;35(6):1543-9
pubmed: 17452937
J Bacteriol. 2008 Jun;190(11):3962-8
pubmed: 18375551
Intensive Care Med. 2008 Jun;34(6):1030-7
pubmed: 18418571
JAMA. 2008 Aug 20;300(7):805-13
pubmed: 18714060
Chest. 2009 Jun;135(6):1564-1571
pubmed: 19141525
Curr Opin Infect Dis. 2009 Apr;22(2):148-53
pubmed: 19276882
Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2010 Dec 15;182(12):1533-9
pubmed: 20693381
Intensive Care Med. 2011 Apr;37(4):639-47
pubmed: 21253703
Clin Microbiol Infect. 2012 Mar;18(3):268-81
pubmed: 21793988
Crit Care Med. 2012 Jan;40(1):119-24
pubmed: 21926595
Crit Care Med. 2012 Jan;40(1):162-8
pubmed: 21926613
Clin Infect Dis. 2012 Mar 1;54(5):621-9
pubmed: 22247123
FEMS Immunol Med Microbiol. 2012 Jul;65(2):309-17
pubmed: 22444646
Crit Care Med. 2012 Aug;40(8):2385-9
pubmed: 22622402
Curr Opin Infect Dis. 2013 Apr;26(2):175-83
pubmed: 23286937
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2015 Aug 12;(8):CD009201
pubmed: 26266942
Clin Microbiol Infect. 2016 Feb;22(2):161.e1-161.e7
pubmed: 26482268
Clin Infect Dis. 2016 Sep 1;63(5):e61-e111
pubmed: 27418577
J Cyst Fibros. 2017 Mar;16(2):222-229
pubmed: 27651273
Future Microbiol. 2016 Dec;11:1599-1610
pubmed: 27831764
J Infect. 2017 Feb;74(2):142-152
pubmed: 27865895
Surg Infect (Larchmt). 2017 Apr;18(3):293-298
pubmed: 28080292
Eur Respir J. 2017 Sep 10;50(3):
pubmed: 28890434
PLoS One. 2018 Jan 25;13(1):e0191721
pubmed: 29370285
Sci Rep. 2018 Aug 9;8(1):11906
pubmed: 30093624
JAMA. 1993 Dec 22-29;270(24):2957-63
pubmed: 8254858
Intensive Care Med. 1996 Jul;22(7):707-10
pubmed: 8844239