The aim of this study is to describe our experience with linezolid plus rifampin as a salvage therapy in prosthetic joint infections (PJIs) when other antibiotic regimens failed or were not tolerated. A total of 161 patients with a documented prosthetic joint infection were diagnosed with a PJI and prospectively followed up from January 2000 to April 2007. Clinical characteristics, inflammatory markers, microbiological and radiological data, and antibiotic treatment were recorded. After a 2-year follow-up, patients were classified as cured when the prosthesis was not removed, symptoms of infection disappeared, and inflammatory parameters were within the normal range. Any other outcome was considered a failure. The mean age of the entire cohort (n ‫؍‬ 161) was 67 years. Ninety-five episodes were on a knee prosthesis (59%), and 66 were on a hip prosthesis (41%). A total of 49 patients received linezolid plus rifampin: 45 due to failure of the previous antibiotic regimen and 4 due to an adverse event associated with the prior antibiotics. In no case was the implant removed. The mean (standard deviation) duration of treatment was 80.2 (29.7) days. The success rate after 24 months of follow-up was 69.4% (34/49 patients). Three patients developed thrombocytopenia and 3 developed anemia; however, it was not necessary to stop linezolid. Linezolid plus rifampin is an alternative salvage therapy when the implant is not removed.

RBCCV Modificações no perfil do paciente submetido à operação de revascularização do miocárdio Changes in profile of patients submitted to coronary bypass graft surgery

objective: To compare the clinical and surgical profile between two groups of patients submitted to Myocardial Revascularization (MCR) surgery at the Instituto de Cardiologia of Rio Grande do Sul with a ten year interval, to observe its influence upon MCR hospital mortality and to verify the predictability of this result using the risk score. Methods:A retrospective cohort study involving 307 patients who underwent MCR surgery within a six month period during 1991/92 (INITIAL group, n=153) or 2001/02 (CURRENT group, n=154). Demographic characteristics, heart disease, comorbidities and surgical events were analyzed to compare the groups and to define the hospital mortality risk score (based on the Cleveland Clinic method). results:The CURRENT group was older, had more severe heart condition (functional class, incidence of heart failure and number of vessels with severe lesions) and a greater prevalence of comorbidities. The INITIAL group had a higher prevalence of nonelective surgery. Both groups had similar mean risk scores (2.8 + 3.1 for INITIAL and 2.2 + 2.5 for CURRENT) and hospital mortality rates (3.3% and 1.9% respectively). These figures are comparable to those for reported by Cleveland Clinic (for a risk score of 3 the predicted mortality range between 2.0 %; using a confidence level of 95% the predicted mortality is between 0 and 4.3%; and actual mortality confirmed by the study was 3.4%). conclusion:Patients currently submitted to MCR are older and in worse clinical condition (heart and systemic) than those operated on ten years ago; however, the risk scores and hospital mortality rates were slightly higher in the INITIAL group. The higher number of nonelective surgical interventions could have contributed to this. A risk score can be used to identify patients that require a higher level of care and to predict surgical outcomes.

No abstract

No abstract