Agranulocytosis Associated With Use of Sulfamethoxazole/Trimethoprim in a Healthy Adult.

Purpose: A case of sulfamethoxazole/trimethoprim-induced agranulocytosis is reported. Summary: A 53-year-old healthy male presented to the emergency room with a fever of 102.7°F and was found to have a white blood cell (WBC) count of 0.6 × 103 cells/µL with an absolute neutrophil count (ANC) of 0.0 x 103 cells/µL. He had recently completed a 10-day course of sulfamethoxazole/trimethoprim for left lower extremity cellulitis. During admission, a bone marrow biopsy was performed which was not concerning for malignancy and no cause for the agranulocytosis other than the sulfamethoxazole/trimethoprim was identified. The agranulocytosis resolved after 6 days of hospitalization with a WBC count of 8.9 × 103 cells/µL and an ANC of 4.1 x 103cells/µL on the day of discharge. Conclusion: A 53-year-old male developed agranulocytosis after 10 days of sulfamethoxazole/trimethoprim therapy for the treatment of a skin and soft tissue infection. His neutropenia resolved after sulfamethoxazole/trimethoprim discontinuation.

Early Diuresis After Colon and Rectal Surgery Does Not Reduce Length of Hospital Stay: Results of a Randomized Trial.

BACKGROUND: Excessive perioperative fluid administration likely increases postoperative cardiovascular, infectious, and GI complications. Early administration of diuretics after elective surgery facilitates rapid mobilization of excess fluid, potentially leading to decreased bowel edema, more rapid return of bowel function, and reduced length of hospital stay. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to evaluate the benefit of early diuresis after elective colon and rectal surgery in the setting of an enhanced recovery after surgery practice. DESIGN: This was a prospective study. SETTINGS: The study was conducted at a quaternary referral center. PATIENTS: A randomized, open-label, parallel-group trial was conducted in patients undergoing elective colon and rectal surgery at a single quaternary referral center. INTERVENTION: The primary intervention was administration of intravenous furosemide plus enhanced recovery after surgery on postoperative day 1 and 2 versus enhanced recovery after surgery alone. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was length of hospital stay. Secondary outcomes included 30-day readmission rate, time to stool output during hospitalization after surgery, and incidence of various complications within the first 48 hours of hospital stay. RESULTS: In total, 123 patients were randomly assigned to receive either furosemide plus enhanced recovery after surgery (n = 62) or enhanced recovery after surgery alone (n = 61). Groups were evenly matched at baseline. At interim analysis, length of hospital stay was not superior in the intervention group (80.6 vs 99.6 hours, p = 0.564). No significant difference was identified in the rates of nasogastric tube replacement (1.6% vs 9.7%, p = 0.125). Time to return of bowel function was significantly longer in the intervention group (45.4 vs 48.8 hours, p = 0.048). The decision was made to end the study early because the conditional power of the study favored futility. LIMITATIONS: This was a single-center study. CONCLUSIONS: Early administration of furosemide does not significantly reduce the length of hospital stay after elective colon and rectal surgery in the setting of enhanced recovery after surgery practice. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/A714.

Comparison of oral antibiotic failure rates in post-Roux-en-Y gastric bypass patients versus controls.

BACKGROUND: Due to the malabsorptive nature of the Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB), there is a potential for impaired absorption of oral medications. Clinical outcomes of patients who receive oral antibiotics after RYGB have not been adequately described in the literature. OBJECTIVES: The primary objective was composite therapeutic failure. Secondary objectives included comparing failure rates between antibiotic classes and at various time points since RYGB. SETTING: University hospital, United States. METHODS: Patients with a history of RYGB and controls who received an eligible oral antibiotic for urinary tract infection, skin and soft tissue infection, or community acquired pneumonia between April 1, 2008, and September 30, 2015, were included via retrospective chart review. Therapeutic failure rates between groups were compared and adjusted for body mass index and infection type. Failure rates among antibiotic classes and various time points since RYGB (0-1 yr, 1-1.9 yr, and≥2 yr) were also compared. RESULTS: A total of 58 RYGB and 128 controls met inclusion and exclusion criteria. Composite therapeutic failure occurred in the RYGB and control group in 14 (24.1%) and 20 patients (15.6%), respectively (P = .18; odds ratio, 1.8; 95% confidence interval .8-4.4). RYGB patients who received fluoroquinolones or sulfonamides had a significantly increased risk of therapeutic failure. CONCLUSIONS: RYGB was not associated with a statistically significant increased risk of composite therapeutic failure of oral antibiotics in the treatment of urinary tract infection, skin and soft tissue infection, or community acquired pneumonia compared with patients with no history of gastrointestinal resection. Further research is warranted to understand clinical outcomes of RYGB patients who receive oral antibiotics.

Clinical implications of statin therapy in patients undergoing hemodialysis.

PURPOSE: The clinical implications regarding the use of statins in patients with end-stage renal disease (ESRD) undergoing hemodialysis are explored. SUMMARY: The majority of the evidence reviewed from randomized controlled trials and recent meta-analyses suggest that there is minimal to no benefit of statin therapy for reducing the risk of coronary heart disease (CHD), including cardiovascular events and mortality, for statin-naive patients undergoing hemodialysis. The Kidney Disease Outcomes Quality Initiative (KDOQI) 2003 dyslipidemia guidelines recommended that patients with ESRD receive a statin to reach a goal low-density-lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol concentration of <100 mg/dL; however, there was no distinction between nondialysis and dialysis patients, and newer evidence has since been published. Although KDOQI released 2012 guidelines that recommended against the initiation of statins in dialysis patients due to the lack of evidence to support benefit, the guidelines were specific for diabetic dialysis patients. Clinicians should use their clinical judgment and weigh the risks and benefits from the available evidence when deciding whether to initiate statins in hemodialysis patients. A statin may be warranted for secondary prevention of cardiovascular events or in younger hemodialysis patients who have a longer life expectancy. CONCLUSION: The available literature does not support the initiation of statins in hemodialysis patients who were not receiving statin therapy before requiring hemodialysis. At this time, there are no conclusive data to support discontinuation of statins in ESRD patients on hemodialysis receiving statins for either primary or secondary prevention of CHD.