Management of Bloodstream Infections in Left Ventricular Assist Device Recipients: To Suppress, or Not to Suppress?
bloodstream infections
chronic antimicrobial suppressive therapy
left ventricular assist device
Journal
Open forum infectious diseases
ISSN: 2328-8957
Titre abrégé: Open Forum Infect Dis
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101637045
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Jan 2021
Jan 2021
Historique:
received:
01
09
2020
accepted:
23
10
2020
entrez:
15
1
2021
pubmed:
16
1
2021
medline:
16
1
2021
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Ascertaining involvement of left ventricular assist device (LVAD) in a patient presenting with bloodstream infection (BSI) can be challenging, frequently leading to use of chronic antimicrobial suppressive (CAS) therapy. We aimed to assess the efficacy of CAS therapy to prevent relapse of BSI from LVAD and non-LVAD sources. We retrospectively screened adults receiving LVAD support from 2010 through 2018, to identify cases of BSI. Bloodstream infection events were classified into LVAD-related, LVAD-associated, and non-LVAD BSIs. A total of 121 episodes of BSI were identified in 80 patients. Of these, 35 cases in the LVAD-related, 14 in the LVAD-associated, and 46 in the non-LVAD BSI groups completed the recommended initial course of therapy and were evaluated for CAS therapy. Chronic antimicrobial suppressive therapy was prescribed in most of the LVAD-related BSI cases (32 of 35, 91.4%) and 12 (37.5%) experienced relapse. Chronic antimicrobial suppressive therapy was not prescribed in a majority of non-LVAD BSI cases (33, 58.9%), and most (31, 93.9%) did not experience relapse. Chronic antimicrobial suppressive therapy was prescribed in 9 of 14 (64.2%) cases of LVAD-associated BSI and none experienced relapse. Of the 5 cases in this group that were managed without CAS, 2 had relapse. Patients presenting with LVAD-related BSI are at high risk of relapse. Consequently, CAS therapy may be a reasonable approach in the management of these cases. In contrast, routine use of CAS therapy may be unnecessary for non-LVAD BSIs.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Ascertaining involvement of left ventricular assist device (LVAD) in a patient presenting with bloodstream infection (BSI) can be challenging, frequently leading to use of chronic antimicrobial suppressive (CAS) therapy. We aimed to assess the efficacy of CAS therapy to prevent relapse of BSI from LVAD and non-LVAD sources.
METHODS
METHODS
We retrospectively screened adults receiving LVAD support from 2010 through 2018, to identify cases of BSI. Bloodstream infection events were classified into LVAD-related, LVAD-associated, and non-LVAD BSIs.
RESULTS
RESULTS
A total of 121 episodes of BSI were identified in 80 patients. Of these, 35 cases in the LVAD-related, 14 in the LVAD-associated, and 46 in the non-LVAD BSI groups completed the recommended initial course of therapy and were evaluated for CAS therapy. Chronic antimicrobial suppressive therapy was prescribed in most of the LVAD-related BSI cases (32 of 35, 91.4%) and 12 (37.5%) experienced relapse. Chronic antimicrobial suppressive therapy was not prescribed in a majority of non-LVAD BSI cases (33, 58.9%), and most (31, 93.9%) did not experience relapse. Chronic antimicrobial suppressive therapy was prescribed in 9 of 14 (64.2%) cases of LVAD-associated BSI and none experienced relapse. Of the 5 cases in this group that were managed without CAS, 2 had relapse.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
Patients presenting with LVAD-related BSI are at high risk of relapse. Consequently, CAS therapy may be a reasonable approach in the management of these cases. In contrast, routine use of CAS therapy may be unnecessary for non-LVAD BSIs.
Identifiants
pubmed: 33447628
doi: 10.1093/ofid/ofaa532
pii: ofaa532
pmc: PMC7794653
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
ofaa532Subventions
Organisme : NCATS NIH HHS
ID : UL1 TR000135
Pays : United States
Organisme : NCATS NIH HHS
ID : UL1 TR002377
Pays : United States
Informations de copyright
© The Author(s) 2020. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of Infectious Diseases Society of America.
Références
Circulation. 2010 Jan 26;121(3):458-77
pubmed: 20048212
ASAIO J. 2018 May/Jun;64(3):287-294
pubmed: 29095732
Ann Thorac Surg. 2008 May;85(5):1656-61
pubmed: 18442560
Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2005 Oct;129(10):1222-5
pubmed: 16196507
Ann Thorac Surg. 2001 Sep;72(3):725-30
pubmed: 11565648
Open Forum Infect Dis. 2020 Jul 20;7(8):ofaa303
pubmed: 32818144
Clin Infect Dis. 2011 Mar 1;52(5):e103-20
pubmed: 21292654
J Heart Lung Transplant. 2011 Apr;30(4):375-84
pubmed: 21419995
Clin Infect Dis. 2009 Jul 1;49(1):1-45
pubmed: 19489710
Am J Infect Control. 2008 Jun;36(5):309-32
pubmed: 18538699
Circulation. 2015 Oct 13;132(15):1435-86
pubmed: 26373316
Surg Infect (Larchmt). 2010 Feb;11(1):79-109
pubmed: 20163262
ASAIO J. 2012 Sep-Oct;58(5):509-13
pubmed: 22820918
Clin Infect Dis. 2013 Nov;57(10):1438-48
pubmed: 23943820
Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2020 Jan;41(1):19-30
pubmed: 31762428
Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2019 Oct 1;200(7):e45-e67
pubmed: 31573350
Artif Organs. 2014 Oct;38(10):875-9
pubmed: 24571683
Expert Rev Anti Infect Ther. 2013 Feb;11(2):201-10
pubmed: 23409825
ASAIO J. 2019 Nov/Dec;65(8):798-805
pubmed: 30234503
Open Forum Infect Dis. 2017 Jun 21;4(3):ofx132
pubmed: 28852678