The hidden side of infective endocarditis: Diagnostic and management of 500 consecutive cases in noncardiac surgery centers (2009-2018)

BACKGROUND

We aimed to describe infective endocarditis cases from noncardiac surgery centers, as current knowledge on infective endocarditis is derived mostly from cardiac surgery hospitals.

METHODS

An observational retrospective study (2009-2018) was conducted in 9 noncardiac surgery hospitals in Central Catalonia. All adult patients diagnosed with definitive infective endocarditis were included. Transferred and nontransferred cohorts were compared, and a logistic regression model was used to ascertain the prognostic factors.

RESULTS

Overall, 502 infective endocarditis episodes were included: 183 (36.5%) were transferred to the cardiac surgery center, whereas 319 were not, with (18.7%) and without (45%) surgical indications. Cardiac surgery was performed in 83% of transferred patients. In-hospital (14% vs 23%) and 1-year (20% vs 35%) mortality rates were significantly lower in transferred patients (P < .001). Among the patients not undergoing cardiac surgery despite an indication, 55 (54%) died within 1 year. The multivariate analysis identified the following independent predictive factors for in-hospital mortality: Staphylococcus aureus infective endocarditis (odds ratio: 1.93 [1.08, 3.47]), heart failure (odds ratio: 3.87 [2.28, 6.57]), central nervous system embolism (odds ratio: 2.95 [1.41, 5.14]), and Charlson score (odds ratio: 1.19 [1.09, 1.30]), whereas community acquisition (odds ratio: 0.52 [0.29, 0.93]), cardiac surgery (odds ratio: 0.42 [0.20, 0.87]), but not transfer (odds ratio: 1.23 [0.84, 3.95]) were identified as protective factors. One-year mortality was associated with S. aureus infective endocarditis (odds ratio: 1.82 [1.04, 3.18]), heart failure (odds ratio: 3.74 [2.27, 6.16]), and Charlson score (odds ratio: 1.23 [1.13, 1.33]), whereas cardiac surgery (odds ratio: 0.41 [0.21, 0.79]) was identified as a protective factor.

CONCLUSION

Patients not transferred to a referral cardiac surgery center have a worse prognosis compared to those ultimately transferred, as cardiac surgery is associated with lower mortality rates.

Improving Recognition of Fracture Risk in People with Human Immunodeficiency Virus: Performance and Model Contribution of Two Common Risk Assessment Tools

Current guidelines recommend screening people with HIV (PWH) for bone disease using predictive tools developed for the general population, although data on PWH are scarce. In this study, we assessed the performance of FRAX and QFracture scoring systems to predict the occurrence of fragility fractures in a prospective cohort of 17,671 adults with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) included in the HIV/AIDS research network (CoRIS) in Spain. The survival estimates of fragility fractures during follow-up were calculated and FRAX and QFracture scores were computed at cohort inclusion. For both tools, discriminatory measures and the observed-to-expected (O/E) ratios were assessed. During a follow-up time of 42,411.55 person-years, 113 fragility fractures were recorded. Areas under the curve were 0.66 [95% confidence interval (95% CI) 0.61-0.71] for FRAX and 0.67 (95% CI 0.62-0.73) for QFracture for major osteoporotic fractures, and 0.72 (95% CI 0.57-0.88) and 0.81 (95% CI 0.68-0.95) for hip fracture, respectively. The O/E was 1.67 for FRAX and 5.49 for QFracture for major osteoporotic fractures, and 11.23 for FRAX and 4.87 for QFracture for hip fractures. Moreover, O/E raised as the risk increased for both tools and in almost all age groups. When using the recommended assessment thresholds, <6% and 10% of major osteoporotic and hip fractures would have been identified, respectively. In conclusion, FRAX and QFracture displayed acceptable discrimination, although both tools significantly underestimated the risk of fragility fractures in PWH. The recommended assessment thresholds may not be appropriate for this population as they were unable to identify individuals with fragility fractures during follow-up.

Use of Generic Antiretroviral Drugs and Single-Tablet Regimen De-Simplification for the Treatment of HIV Infection in Spain

The present study sought to describe the use of generic drugs and single-tablet regimen (STR) de-simplification for the treatment of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infection among 41 hospitals from the cohort of the Spanish HIV/AIDS Research Network (CoRIS). In June 2018, we collected information on when generic antiretroviral drugs (ARVs) were introduced in the different hospitals, how the decisions to use them were made, and how the information was provided to the patients. Most of the nine available generic ARVs in Spain by June 2018 had been introduced in at least 85% of the participating hospitals, except for zidovudine (AZT)/lamivudine (3TC) and AZT. The time difference between the effective marketing date of each generic ARV and its first dispensing date in the hospitals was much shorter for the more recently approved generic ARV since the year 2017. However, only up to 20% of the hospitals de-simplified efavirenz (EFV)/tenofovir disoproxil (TDF)/emtricitabine (FTC), dolutegravir (DTG)/abacavir (ABC)/3TC, and rilpivirine (RPV)/TDF/FTC (to generic EFV+TDF/FTC, DTG+generic ABC/3TC, and RPV+generic TDF/FTC, respectively), whereas the generic STR EFV/TDF/FTC was introduced in 87.8% of the centers. The median times between the date of effective marketing of generic TDF/FTC and the date of de-simplification of EFV/TDF/FTC and RPV/TDF/FTC were 723 [interquartile range (IQR): 369-1,119] and 234 (IQR: 142-264) days, respectively; this time was 155 (IQR: 28-287) days for de-simplification of DTG/ABC/3TC. In conclusion, despite the widespread use of generic ARVs, STRs de-simplification was only undertaken in <20% of the hospitals. There was wide variability in the timing of the introduction of each generic ARV after they were available in the market.

COVID-19 in hospitalized HIV-positive and HIV-negative patients: A matched study

OBJECTIVES

We compared the characteristics and clinical outcomes of hospitalized individuals with COVID-19 with [people with HIV (PWH)] and without (non-PWH) HIV co-infection in Spain during the first wave of the pandemic.

METHODS

This was a retrospective matched cohort study. People with HIV were identified by reviewing clinical records and laboratory registries of 10 922 patients in active-follow-up within the Spanish HIV Research Network (CoRIS) up to 30 June 2020. Each hospitalized PWH was matched with five non-PWH of the same age and sex randomly selected from COVID-19@Spain, a multicentre cohort of 4035 patients hospitalized with confirmed COVID-19. The main outcome was all-cause in-hospital mortality.

RESULTS

Forty-five PWH with PCR-confirmed COVID-19 were identified in CoRIS, 21 of whom were hospitalized. A total of 105 age/sex-matched controls were selected from the COVID-19@Spain cohort. The median age in both groups was 53 (Q1-Q3, 46-56) years, and 90.5% were men. In PWH, 19.1% were injecting drug users, 95.2% were on antiretroviral therapy, 94.4% had HIV-RNA < 50 copies/mL, and the median (Q1-Q3) CD4 count was 595 (349-798) cells/μL. No statistically significant differences were found between PWH and non-PWH in number of comorbidities, presenting signs and symptoms, laboratory parameters, radiology findings and severity scores on admission. Corticosteroids were administered to 33.3% and 27.4% of PWH and non-PWH, respectively (P = 0.580). Deaths during admission were documented in two (9.5%) PWH and 12 (11.4%) non-PWH (P = 0.800).

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings suggest that well-controlled HIV infection does not modify the clinical presentation or worsen clinical outcomes of COVID-19 hospitalization.

Corticosteroids and tocilizumab reduce in-hospital mortality in severe COVID-19 pneumonia: a retrospective study in a Spanish hospital

Background

There is an urgent need to reduce mortality of COVID-19. We examined if corticosteroids and tocilizumab reduce risk for death in patients with severe pneumonia caused by SARS-CoV-2.

Methods

A retrospective cohort study was performed in a single university hospital. All adult patients admitted with confirmed severe COVID-19 pneumonia from 9 March to 9 April 2020 were included. Severe pneumonia was defined as multi-lobar or bilateral pneumonia and a ratio of oxygen saturation by pulse oximetry to the fraction of inspired oxygen (SpFi)<315. All patients received antiviral and antibiotic treatment. From March 26, patients also received immunomodulatory treatment with corticosteroids (methylprednisolone 250 mg/day for 3 days), or tocilizumab or both. In-hospital mortality in the entire cohort and in a 1:1 matched cohort sub-analysis was evaluated.

Results

255 patients were included, 118 received only antiviral and antibiotic treatment while 137, admitted after March 26, also received immunomodulators. In-hospital mortality of patients on immunomodulatory treatment was significantly lower than in those without [47/137(34.3%) vs. 69/118(58.5%), (p < .001)]. The risk of death was 0.44 (CI, 0.26–0.76) in patients receiving corticosteroids alone and 0.292 (CI, 0.18–0.47) in those treated with corticosteroids and tocilizumab. In the sub-analysis with 202 matched patients, the risk of death was 0.356 (CI 0.179–0.707) in patients receiving corticosteroids alone and 0.233 (0.124–0.436) in those treated with the combination.

Conclusions

Combined treatment with corticosteroids and tocilizumab reduced mortality with about 25% in patients with severe COVID-19 pneumonia. Corticosteroids alone also resulted in lower in-hospital mortality rate compared to patients receiving only antiviral and antibiotic treatment. Corticosteroids alone or combined with tocilizumab may be considered in patients with severe COVID-19 pneumonia.

Meta-analysis: comparative efficacy of H2-receptor antagonists and proton pump inhibitors for reducing aspiration risk during anaesthesia depending on the administration route and schedule

H2-receptor antagonists (H2RA) and proton pump inhibitors (PPI) are widely used for aspiration prophylaxis in patients receiving general anaesthesia. Many randomized trials have compared these agents but it remains unclear which drug type is more effective in reducing the number of patients at risk of complications. The study aimed to compare their efficacy for decreasing the number of patients at risk of acid aspiration during general anaesthesia. Major databases were systematically searched. Randomized controlled trials comparing PPI and H2RA were selected. Sub-analyses were performed considering the dose, the dosing schedule, and the route of administration. Eighteen studies fulfilled the inclusion criteria. The main analysis showed a non-significant trend for H2RA being more effective than PPI. Only when both drugs were administered per os, as a single dose and immediately before surgery, was H2RA significantly more effective than PPI. By contrast, the effect of PPI and H2RA was similar when they were administered in two doses (the night before and on the morning of surgery) or when the drugs were given intravenously. A single H2RA dose before surgery is highly effective in reducing the number of patients at risk of acid aspiration. PPI administered in two oral doses or in a single intravenous infusion seems to be as effective as H2RA.

[Long survival after resection of cranial metastases from hepatocellular carcinoma. Case report and review of the literature]

The life expectancy of patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) has increased in the last few years due to recent treatment advances. However, extrahepatic metastases from tumors, previously described only occasionally, are becoming more frequent in clinical practice. The choice between an active or passive approach to these metastatic lesions can sometimes present clinicians with a difficult dilemma. We discuss the case of a male patient with multifocal HCC and cranial metastasis from a primary liver tumor and who, after surgery and radiotherapy over the metastatic lesion, has survived for more than 3 years.