In this systematic review, we investigate the epidemiology, pathogenesis, risk factors, clinical manifestations, diagnosis and treatment of COVID-19-associated pulmonary aspergillosis (CAPA). We identified 85 cases from 22 studies. The frequency of CAPA is currently unknown but ranges between <5% to >30% in different case series; the possibility of colonization rather than invasive disease is the most important confounder. The vast majority of patients with CAPA did not have any of the classic host risk factors, such as immunosuppression from organ transplant or neutropenia, although a significant proportion (46%) had received corticosteroids. Age, pulmonary comorbidities and male sex were associated with higher mortality. Patients treated with voriconazole had numerically lower case-fatality rate. Clinical vigilance for CAPA is advisable in critically ill patients with COVID-19 who are not improving, even those who do not meet classic host criteria for invasive mycoses, especially if they are receiving corticosteroids. A thorough, multi-faceted diagnostic work-up and early initiation of a mold-active triazole may be lifesaving. Further research studies using standardized, uniform definitions of invasive disease and colonization are urgently needed.

The novel severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 is causing a worldwide pandemic that may lead to a highly morbid and potentially fatal coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). There is currently no drug that has been proven as an effective therapy for COVID-19. Several candidate drugs are being considered and evaluated for treatment. This includes clinically available drugs, such as chloroquine, hydroxychloroquine, and lopinavir/ritonavir, which are being repurposed for the treatment of COVID-19. Novel experimental therapies, such as remdesivir and favipiravir, are also actively being investigated for antiviral efficacy. Clinically available and investigational immunomodulators, such as the interleukin 6 inhibitors tocilizumab and sarilumab and the antiegranulocyte-macrophage colonystimulating factor lenzilumab, are being tested for their anticipated effect in counteracting the proinflammatory cytokine environment that characterizes severe and critical COVID-19. This review article examines the evidence behind the potential use of these leading drug candidates for the treatment of COVID-19. The authors conclude, based on this review, that there is still no high-quality evidence to support any of these proposed drug therapies. The authors, therefore, encourage the enrollment of eligible patients to multiple ongoing clinical trials that assess the efficacy and safety of these candidate therapies. Until the results of controlled trials are available, none of the suggested therapeutics is clinically proven as an effective therapy for COVID-19.

Spinal cord stimulation (SCS) is the most utilized invasive electrical neuromodulation treatment for the management of refractory chronic pain syndromes. Infection is one of the most dreaded complications related to SCS implantation and may prevent patients from receiving adequate pain treatment, adding to the initial cost and disability. Most SCS infections present as generator pocket infection. However, delay in diagnosis may lead to complications such as meningitis, epidural abscess, and/or vertebral osteomyelitis. Early recognition of SCS-related infections and associated complications is based on clinical suspicion, laboratory testing, and appropriate diagnostic imaging. While superficial surgical site infection following SCS implant may be treated with antibiotic therapy alone, deep infection involving implant warrants device removal to achieve cure. Duration of antimicrobial therapy depends on severity of clinical presentation and presence or absence of associated complications. Several preventive strategies can be incorporated in surgical practice to reduce the risk of SCS infection.

Background Using synthetic antibiotic‐eluting envelope (ABE) is an effective intervention for prevention of cardiovascular implantable electronic device (CIED) infection. The biologic extracellular‐matrix envelope (ECME), may offer potential advantages over the synthetic ABE. To further minimize the risk of infection, the ECME can be hydrated in gentamicin prior to CIED implantation. We aimed to evaluate the efficacy and pharmacokinetics (PK) of gentamicin containing ECME in an animal model. Methods For all experiments, the ECME was hydrated in gentamicin (40 mg/Ml) (treatment) for 2 min. In vitro antimicrobial efficacy against six different bacterial species was assessed. In vivo experiments were conducted using a rabbit model of CIED pocket infection. Serum and ECM gentamicin concentrations were measured. Five different organisms were inoculated into the device pocket of control (ECME hydrated in 0.9% saline) and treatment groups. Macroscopic appearance and colony forming units from CIED, ECME, and tissue were determined. Results No bacteria were recovered from any culture after 12 h of exposure to the gentamicin containing ECME. Serum gentamicin levels dropped below the limit of quantification at 15 h after implant. Gentamicin concentration in the ECME remained relatively stable for up to 7 days. Signs of clinical infection were observed in the control but not in the treatment group. In the presence of gentamicin, statistically significant reduction was demonstrated across all tested bacterial species. Conclusions In this preclinical animal infection model, gentamicin containing ECME was highly effective in reducing bacterial burden in the implant pocket, while systemic exposure after implantation remained low.

Objective: Cardiac-implantable electronic device (CIED) infections are associated with significant morbidity and mortality. In this review, we describe the risk factors and pathogenesis of CIED infections and review the rationale and the evidence for the use of antibiotic-eluting envelopes (ABEs) in patients at increased risk for CIED infections. Findings: The majority of CIED infections are caused by staphylococci that involve generator pocket and occur due to contamination of the device or the pocket tissues at the time of implantation. Clinical trials have shown that extending the duration of post-operative systemic antibacterial therapy is not beneficial in reducing CIED infection rate. However, ABEs that reduce device migration after implantation and provide sustained local delivery of prophylactic antibiotics at the pocket site, may provide benefit in reducing infection. Currently, there are two types of commercially available CIED envelope devices in the United States. The first ABE device (TYRX™, Medtronic Inc., Monmouth Junction, NJ) is composed of a synthetic absorbable mesh envelope that elutes minocycline and rifampin and has been shown to reduce CIED pocket infections in a large multi-center randomized clinical trial. The second ABE device (CanGaroo-G™, Aziyo Biologics, Silver Spring, MD) is composed of decellularized extracellular matrix (ECM) and was originally designed to stabilize the device within the pocket, limiting risk for migration or erosion, and providing a substrate for tissue ingrowth in a preclinical study. This device has shown promising results in a preclinical study with local delivery of gentamicin. Compared with artificial materials, such as synthetic surgical mesh, biologic ECM has been shown to foster greater tissue integration and vascular ingrowth, a reduced inflammatory response, and more rapid clearance of bacteria. Conclusions and Relevance: ABE devices provide sustained local delivery of antibiotics at the generator pocket site and appear beneficial in reducing CIED pocket infections. Given the continued increase in the use of CIED therapy and resultant infectious complications, innovative approaches to infection prevention are critical.

No abstract

BACKGROUND: The American Heart Association has sponsored both guidelines and scientific statements that address the diagnosis, management, and prevention of infective endocarditis. As a result of the unprecedented and increasing incidence of infective endocarditis cases among people who inject drugs, the American Heart Association sponsored this original scientific statement. It provides a more in-depth focus on the management of infective endocarditis among this unique population than what has been provided in prior American Heart Association infective endocarditis–related documents. METHODS: A writing group was named and consisted of recognized experts in the fields of infectious diseases, cardiology, addiction medicine, and cardiovascular surgery in October 2021. A literature search was conducted in Embase on November 19, 2021, and multiple terms were used, with 1345 English-language articles identified after removal of duplicates. CONCLUSIONS: Management of infective endocarditis in people who inject drugs is complex and requires a unique approach in all aspects of care. Clinicians must appreciate that it requires involvement of a variety of specialists and that consultation by addiction-trained clinicians is as important as that of more traditional members of the endocarditis team to improve infective endocarditis outcomes. Preventive measures are critical in people who inject drugs and are cured of an initial bout of infective endocarditis because they remain at extremely high risk for subsequent bouts of infective endocarditis, regardless of whether injection drug use is continued.

Background Post-operative management of patients undergoing cardiac transplantation with an infected left ventricular assist device (LVAD) is unclear. Methods We retrospectively screened all adults with an LVAD who underwent cardiac transplantation at our institution from 2010 through 2018. We selected all cases of LVAD-specific and LVAD-related infections who were receiving antimicrobial therapy as initial treatment course or chronic suppression at the time of cardiac transplantation. Non-LVAD infections, superficial driveline-infection, or concurrent use of right ventricular assist device or extracorporeal membrane oxygenation device were excluded. Results A total of 54 cases met study criteria with 18/54 (33.6%) classified as LVAD- specific or related infections and 36/54 (66.6%) as non-infected. Cases of LVAD-infection had a higher median Charlson Comorbidity Index score at the time of transplantation compared to non-infected cases (P=.005). Of the 18 cases of infection, 13/18 (72.2%) were classified as LVAD-specific and 5/18 (27.8%) as LVAD-related. A total of 9/13 (69.2%) cases had proven LVAD-specific infections. Antimicrobial therapy was extended post-transplant to treat preceding LVAD-specific infection in all nine cases (9/13, 69.2%) with a median duration of 14 days (IQR 14-28). Following LVAD removal, antimicrobial treatment was not continued for preceding LVAD-related infections. Conclusions Patients with an LVAD-specific infection were treated with two weeks of pathogen-directed therapy post heart transplant without any relapses. For those without LVAD-specific infection or uncomplicated LVAD-related bacteremia who had completed antimicrobial therapy pre-transplant, antibiotics were discontinued after standard peri-operative prophylaxis and no relapses were observed.