Predictors of Treatment Success After Periprosthetic Joint Infection: 24-Month Follow up From a Multicenter Prospective Observational Cohort Study of 653 Patients.
arthroplasty
debridement
infectious arthritis
mantente sintiéndote libre
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:
Mar 2022
Mar 2022
Historique:
received:
18
11
2021
accepted:
30
01
2022
entrez:
2
3
2022
pubmed:
3
3
2022
medline:
3
3
2022
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) is a devastating condition and there is a lack of evidence to guide its management. We hypothesized that treatment success is independently associated with modifiable variables in surgical and antibiotic management. The is a prospective, observational study at 27 hospitals across Australia and New Zealand. Newly diagnosed large joint PJIs were eligible. Data were collected at baseline and at 3, 12, and 24 months. The main outcome measures at 24 months were clinical cure (defined as all of the following: alive, absence of clinical or microbiological evidence of infection, and not requiring ongoing antibiotic therapy) and treatment success (clinical cure plus index prosthesis still in place). Twenty-four-month outcome data were available for 653 patients. Overall, 449 patients (69%) experienced clinical cure and 350 (54%) had treatment success. The most common treatment strategy was debridement and implant retention (DAIR), with success rates highest in early postimplant infections (119 of 160, 74%) and lower in late acute (132 of 267, 49%) and chronic (63 of 142, 44%) infections. Selected comorbidities, knee joint, and Treatment success in PJI is associated with (1) selecting the appropriate treatment strategy and (2) nonmodifiable patient and infection factors. Interdisciplinary decision making that matches an individual patient to an appropriate management strategy is a critical step for PJI management. Randomized controlled trials are needed to determine the role of rifampicin in patients managed with DAIR and the optimal surgical strategy for late-acute PJI.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) is a devastating condition and there is a lack of evidence to guide its management. We hypothesized that treatment success is independently associated with modifiable variables in surgical and antibiotic management.
METHODS
METHODS
The is a prospective, observational study at 27 hospitals across Australia and New Zealand. Newly diagnosed large joint PJIs were eligible. Data were collected at baseline and at 3, 12, and 24 months. The main outcome measures at 24 months were clinical cure (defined as all of the following: alive, absence of clinical or microbiological evidence of infection, and not requiring ongoing antibiotic therapy) and treatment success (clinical cure plus index prosthesis still in place).
RESULTS
RESULTS
Twenty-four-month outcome data were available for 653 patients. Overall, 449 patients (69%) experienced clinical cure and 350 (54%) had treatment success. The most common treatment strategy was debridement and implant retention (DAIR), with success rates highest in early postimplant infections (119 of 160, 74%) and lower in late acute (132 of 267, 49%) and chronic (63 of 142, 44%) infections. Selected comorbidities, knee joint, and
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
Treatment success in PJI is associated with (1) selecting the appropriate treatment strategy and (2) nonmodifiable patient and infection factors. Interdisciplinary decision making that matches an individual patient to an appropriate management strategy is a critical step for PJI management. Randomized controlled trials are needed to determine the role of rifampicin in patients managed with DAIR and the optimal surgical strategy for late-acute PJI.
Identifiants
pubmed: 35233433
doi: 10.1093/ofid/ofac048
pii: ofac048
pmc: PMC8882242
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
ofac048Informations de copyright
© The Author(s) 2022. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of Infectious Diseases Society of America.
Références
JAMA. 1998 May 20;279(19):1537-41
pubmed: 9605897
Open Forum Infect Dis. 2021 Jul 01;8(7):ofab298
pubmed: 34258321
Surg Infect (Larchmt). 2020 Dec;21(10):877-883
pubmed: 32282286
J Arthroplasty. 2019 Feb;34(2):365-368
pubmed: 30401558
J Antimicrob Chemother. 2009 Jun;63(6):1264-71
pubmed: 19336454
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2010 Jan;468(1):52-6
pubmed: 19669386
J Arthroplasty. 2012 Sep;27(8 Suppl):61-5.e1
pubmed: 22554729
Open Forum Infect Dis. 2020 May 14;7(5):ofaa068
pubmed: 32432148
J Antimicrob Chemother. 2010 Mar;65(3):569-75
pubmed: 20053693
J Infect. 2018 Dec;77(6):479-488
pubmed: 30205122
J Arthroplasty. 2019 Feb;34(2S):S1-S2
pubmed: 30343969
Clin Infect Dis. 2013 Jan;56(1):1-10
pubmed: 23230301
J Orthop Surg Res. 2020 Aug 28;15(1):365
pubmed: 32859235
Clin Infect Dis. 2018 Sep 28;67(8):1288-1290
pubmed: 29684101
Clin Microbiol Infect. 2013 Feb;19(2):181-6
pubmed: 22264335
Clin Microbiol Infect. 2010 Dec;16(12):1789-95
pubmed: 21077986
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2013 Jul;471(7):2374-82
pubmed: 23440616
J Orthop Surg Res. 2019 Nov 12;14(1):358
pubmed: 31718644
J Orthop Surg Res. 2019 Aug 28;14(1):278
pubmed: 31462250
J Arthroplasty. 2019 Feb;34(2S):S393-S397
pubmed: 30348575
J Arthroplasty. 2019 Feb;34(2S):S399-S419
pubmed: 30348550
J Arthroplasty. 2009 Sep;24(6 Suppl):105-9
pubmed: 19493644
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2021 Oct 1;479(10):2203-2213
pubmed: 34061486
Orthopedics. 2013 Jun;36(6):765-70
pubmed: 23746013
J Arthroplasty. 2021 Jan;36(1):305-310.e1
pubmed: 32868114
Clin Infect Dis. 2013 Jan;56(1):e1-e25
pubmed: 23223583
Bone Joint J. 2017 Nov;99-B(11):1458-1466
pubmed: 29092984