Retrospective Evaluation of the Association of Oxacillin MIC on Acute Treatment Outcomes with Cefazolin and Antistaphylococcal Penicillins in Methicillin-Susceptible Staphylococcus aureus Bacteremia.

Antistaphylococcal penicillins (ASP) and cefazolin are first-line treatment of methicillin-susceptible Staphylococcus aureus (MSSA) bacteremia. Borderline oxacillin resistance (i.e., oxacillin MICs 1-8 µg/mL) is observed in strains hyperproducing beta-lactamases. This mechanism is also behind the proposed inoculum effect. Minimal data exists on the comparative efficacy of cefazolin or ASP in qualitatively susceptible strains that demonstrate MICs of oxacillin of 1 to 2 µg/mL compared to strains with MIC of oxacillin < 1 µg/mL. We performed a retrospective cohort study of acute treatment outcomes in adult patients with community-acquired MSSA bacteremia treated with cefazolin or ASP, stratified by oxacillin MIC. The primary outcome was a composite of all-cause mortality during the index inpatient admission, failure to clear blood cultures within 72 h after initiating definitive therapy, and change in therapy due to perceived lack of efficacy. A total of 402 patients were included in this study, including 226 isolates with an oxacillin MIC ≥ 1 µg/mL and 176 isolates with an MIC < 1 µg/mL. There were no differences in the rate of the primary outcome occurrence between patients with an oxacillin MIC ≥ 1 µg/mL and an MIC < 1 µg/mL (16.4% versus 15.9%, P = 0.90). There was no difference in the primary outcome between high versus low oxacillin MIC groups among those who received ASP (22.9% versus 24.1%, P = 0.86) or cefazolin (10.3% versus 11.9%, P = 0.86). In our cohort of patients with MSSA bacteremia, oxacillin MIC (i.e., ≥ 1 versus < 1 µg/mL) was not associated with acute treatment outcomes, regardless of the beta-lactam selected as definitive therapy.

Incidence of Monomicrobial Staphylococcus aureus Bacteremia: A Population-Based Study in Olmsted County, Minnesota-2006 to 2020.

Background: Population-based studies of Staphylococcus aureus bacteremia (SAB) in the United States are limited. We provide a contemporary evaluation of SAB incidence in Olmsted County, Minnesota, from 2006 to 2020. Methods: This was a retrospective population-based study of all adult patients with SAB residing in Olmsted County from 1 January 2006 through 31 December 2020. Initial episodes of SAB were identified using the microbiology laboratory databases at both Olmsted Medical Center and Mayo Clinic Rochester. Results: Overall, 541 incident SAB cases were identified with a median age of 66.8 (interquartile range, 54.4-78.5) years, and 60.4% were male. Among these cases, 298 (56.2%) were due to methicillin-susceptible S aureus (MSSA) and 232 (43.8%) cases of methicillin-resistant S aureus (MRSA). The overall age- and sex-adjusted SAB incidence rate (IR) was 33.9 (95% confidence interval [CI], 31.0-36.8) cases/100 000 person-years (PY). Males had a higher age-adjusted IR of 46.0 (95% CI, 41.0-51.0) cases/100 000 PY compared to females (IR, 24.4 [95% CI, 21.1-27.7] cases/100 000 PY). Age- and sex-adjusted SAB IRs due to MSSA and MRSA were 18.7 and 14.6 cases/100 000 PY, respectively, and the percentage of incident SAB cases due to MRSA fluctuated across the study period. There was no apparent temporal trend in SAB incidence over the study period (P = .093). Conclusions: Our investigation represents the only contemporary population-based study in the United States. Despite the impression that SAB incidence may have increased based on Centers for Disease Control and Prevention surveillance data, our finding of no change in SAB incidence was somewhat unanticipated.

The utility of postoperative systemic antibiotic prophylaxis following cardiovascular implantable electronic device implantation: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: There is insufficient evidence regarding postoperative systemic antibiotic prophylaxis use for more than 24 h following cardiovascular implantable electronic devices (CIED) implantation and its impact on infection prevention. However, this strategy remains a common practice in many institutions. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis including studies that compared the outcomes of patients: (1) who received preoperative plus 24 h or more of postoperative antibiotic prophylaxis (intervention group); and (2) who received either preoperative only or preoperative plus less than 24 h of antibiotic prophylaxis (control group). Risk of bias was assessed with ROBINS-I and ROB-2 tools. Risk ratio (RR) was pooled using random-effect meta-analyses with inverse variance method. RESULTS: Eight studies that included two randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and six cohort studies with a total of 26,187 patients were included in the analysis. Overall, there were no differences in outcomes between the two groups, which included rates of CIED infection (RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.42, 1.42), mortality (RR 1.19, 95% CI 0.69, 2.06), pocket hematoma (RR 1.15, 95% CI 0.44, 3.00) or reintervention (RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.22, 3.46). Of note, the results were primarily impacted by the larger RCT. CONCLUSIONS: There was no benefit of postoperative antibiotic prophylaxis for more than 24 h following CIED implantation in the current systematic review and meta-analysis. This supports the practice advocated by current guidelines which foster antibiotic stewardship and may result in reductions of adverse drug events, selection for antibiotic resistance, and financial costs of prolonged postoperative antibiotic prophylaxis.

Contemporary experience of Abiotrophia, Granulicatella and Gemella bacteremia.

BACKGROUND: Abiotrophia, Granulicatella, and Gemella are gastrointestinal microbiota, gram-positive cocci that behave like viridans group streptococci. Despite the low incidence of bacteremia from these organisms, they can lead to infective endocarditis (IE) and other clinical syndromes. Due to scant data, we aim to describe detailed clinical features, management, and outcomes of patients with bacteremia from these organisms. METHODS: We reviewed all adult patients who developed Abiotrophia, Granulicatella, or Gemella bacteremia from 2011 to 2020, at Mayo Clinic. RESULTS: We identified 238 patients with positive blood culture for these organisms. Of those, 161 (67.6%) patients were deemed to have bacteremia of clinical significance; 62 (38.5%) were neutropenic, - none of whom were diagnosed with IE. The primary source of bacteremia for the neutropenic group was the gastrointestinal tract. Among 161 patients, echocardiography was obtained in 88 (54.7%) patients, especially those with unknown sources of bacteremia. A total of 19 cases had IE: 5 (26.3%) Abiotrophia, 11 (57.9%) Granulicatella, and 3 (15.8%) Gemella. Based on known IE scoring systems, the negative predictive value at established cutoffs for these scores, performed with our cohort were 95.9%, 100% and 97.9% for NOVA, HANDOC and DENOVA scores, respectively. We also found that the penicillin-non-susceptible rate was high in Abiotrophia (66.7%) and Granulicatella (53.7%). CONCLUSIONS: We described unique characteristics of Abiotrophia, Granulicatella, and Gemella bacteremia at our institution. Clinical significance, clinical syndrome, their proclivity of endocarditis, and susceptibility pattern should be thoroughly reviewed when encountering these organisms.

Outcomes of COVID-19 With the Mayo Clinic Model of Care and Research.

OBJECTIVE: To report the Mayo Clinic experience with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) related to patient outcomes. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective chart review of patients with COVID-19 diagnosed between March 1, 2020, and July 31, 2020, at any of the Mayo Clinic sites. We abstracted pertinent comorbid conditions such as age, sex, body mass index, Charlson Comorbidity Index variables, and treatments received. Factors associated with hospitalization and mortality were assessed in univariate and multivariate models. RESULTS: A total of 7891 patients with confirmed COVID-19 infection with research authorization on file received care across the Mayo Clinic sites during the study period. Of these, 7217 patients were adults 18 years or older who were analyzed further. A total of 897 (11.4%) patients required hospitalization, and 354 (4.9%) received care in the intensive care unit (ICU). All hospitalized patients were reviewed by a COVID-19 Treatment Review Panel, and 77.5% (695 of 897) of inpatients received a COVID-19-directed therapy. Overall mortality was 1.2% (94 of 7891), with 7.1% (64 of 897) mortality in hospitalized patients and 11.3% (40 of 354) in patients requiring ICU care. CONCLUSION: Mayo Clinic outcomes of patients with COVID-19 infection in the ICU, hospital, and community compare favorably with those reported nationally. This likely reflects the impact of interprofessional multidisciplinary team evaluation, effective leveraging of clinical trials and available treatments, deployment of remote monitoring tools, and maintenance of adequate operating capacity to not require surge adjustments. These best practices can help guide other health care systems with the continuing response to the COVID-19 pandemic.