The efficacy and safety of high-dose intravenous polyspecific immunoglobulin G (IVIG) as adjunctive therapy in streptococcal toxic shock syndrome (STSS) were evaluated in a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. The trial was prematurely terminated because of slow patient recruitment, and results were obtained from 21 enrolled patients (10 IVIG recipients and 11 placebo recipients). The primary end point was mortality at 28 days, and a 3.6-fold higher mortality rate was found in the placebo group. A significant decrease in the sepsis-related organ failure assessment score at days 2 (P=.02) and 3 (P=.04) was noted in the IVIG group. Furthermore, a significant increase in plasma neutralizing activity against superantigens expressed by autologous isolates was noted in the IVIG group after treatment (P=.03). Although statistical significance was not reached in the primary end point, the trial provides further support for IVIG as an efficacious adjunctive therapy in STSS.
To define the influence of prognostic factors in patients with community-acquired pneumococcal bacteremia, a 2-year prospective study was performed in 5 centers in Canada, the United States, the United Kingdom, Spain, and Sweden. By multivariate analysis, the independent predictors of death among the 460 patients were age >65 years (odds ratio [OR], 2.2), living in a nursing home (OR, 2.8), presence of chronic pulmonary disease (OR, 2.5), high acute physiology score (OR for scores 9-14, 7.6; for scores 15-17, 22; and for scores >17, 41), and need for mechanical ventilation (OR, 4.4). Of patients with meningitis, 26% died. Of patients with pneumonia without meningitis, 19% of those with >/=2 lobes and 7% of those with only 1 lobe involved (P=.0016) died. The case-fatality rate differed significantly among the centers: 20% in the United States and Spain, 13% in the United Kingdom, 8% in Sweden, and 6% in Canada. Differences of disease severity and of frequencies and impact of underlying chronic conditions were factors of probable importance for different outcomes.
BackgroundSurveillance of sepsis incidence is important for directing resources and evaluating quality-of-care interventions. The aim was to develop and validate a fully-automated Sepsis-3 based surveillance system in non-intensive care wards using electronic health record (EHR) data, and demonstrate utility by determining the burden of hospital-onset sepsis and variations between wards.MethodsA rule-based algorithm was developed using EHR data from a cohort of all adult patients admitted at an academic centre between July 2012 and December 2013. Time in intensive care units was censored. To validate algorithm performance, a stratified random sample of 1000 hospital admissions (674 with and 326 without suspected infection) was classified according to the Sepsis-3 clinical criteria (suspected infection defined as having any culture taken and at least two doses of antimicrobials administered, and an increase in Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score by >2 points) and the likelihood of infection by physician medical record review.ResultsIn total 82 653 hospital admissions were included. The Sepsis-3 clinical criteria determined by physician review were met in 343 of 1000 episodes. Among them, 313 (91%) had possible, probable or definite infection. Based on this reference, the algorithm achieved sensitivity 0.887 (95% CI: 0.799 to 0.964), specificity 0.985 (95% CI: 0.978 to 0.991), positive predictive value 0.881 (95% CI: 0.833 to 0.926) and negative predictive value 0.986 (95% CI: 0.973 to 0.996). When applied to the total cohort taking into account the sampling proportions of those with and without suspected infection, the algorithm identified 8599 (10.4%) sepsis episodes. The burden of hospital-onset sepsis (>48 hour after admission) and related in-hospital mortality varied between wards.ConclusionsA fully-automated Sepsis-3 based surveillance algorithm using EHR data performed well compared with physician medical record review in non-intensive care wards, and exposed variations in hospital-onset sepsis incidence between wards.
Swedish guidelines for diagnosis and treatment of infective endocarditis (IE) by consensus of experts are based on clinical experience and reports from the literature. Recommendations are evidence based. For diagnosis 3 blood cultures should be drawn; chest X-ray, electrocardiogram, and echocardiography preferably transoesophageal should be carried out. Blood cultures should be kept for 5 d and precede intravenous antibiotic therapy. In patients with native valves and suspicion of staphylococcal aetiology, cloxacillin and gentamicin should be given as empirical treatment. If non-staphylococcal etiology is most probable, penicillin G and gentamicin treatment should be started. In patients with prosthetic valves treatment with vancomycin, gentamicin and rifampicin is recommended. Patients with blood culture negative IE are recommended penicillin G (changed to cefuroxime in treatment failure) and gentamicin for native valve IE and vancomycin, gentamicin and rifampicin for prosthetic valve IE, respectively. Isolates of viridans group streptococci and enterococci should be subtyped and MIC should be determined for penicillin G and aminoglycosides. Antibiotic treatment should be chosen according to sensitivity pattern given 2-6 weeks intravenously. Cardiac valve surgery should be considered early, especially in patients with left-sided IE and/or prosthetic heart valves. Absolute indications for surgery are severe heart failure, paravalvular abscess, lack of response to antibiotic therapy, unstable prosthesis and multiple embolies. Follow-up echocardiography should be performed on clinical indications.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.