Evaluation of the Specificity of the 2023 Duke-International Society of Cardiovascular Infectious Diseases Classification for Infective Endocarditis.

BACKGROUND: The 2023 Duke-ISCVID (International Society of Cardiovascular Infectious Diseases) classification is a new diagnostic tool for infective endocarditis, updating the 2000 modified Duke and the 2015 European Society for Cardiology (ESC) classifications. In comparison, its sensitivity is higher; however, its specificity remains to be evaluated and compared to that of the 2 other classifications in endocarditis suspected patients. METHODS: We retrospectively collected the characteristics of patients hospitalized in Bichat University's Hospital, Paris, in 2021, who had been evaluated for clinical suspicion of endocarditis, have had at least a transthoracic echocardiography, 2 pairs of blood cultures, 3-month follow-up and in whom endocarditis diagnosis was finally rejected. All patients were classified by 2000 modified Duke, 2015 ESC and 2023 Duke-ISCVID, as though the endocarditis diagnosis had not been rejected. RESULTS: In total, 130 patients' charts were analyzed. Mean age was 62 years, 84 (64.6%) were male, 39 (30.0%) had prosthetic cardiac valve or valve repair, 21 (16.2%) cardiac implanted electronic device, and 30 (23.1%) other cardiac conditions. Overall, 5, 2, and 5 patients were falsely classified as definite endocarditis with the 2000 modified Duke, 2015 ESC, and 2023 Duke-ISCVID classifications, respectively. The corresponding specificities were 96.2% (95% confidence interval [CI] [90.8%, 98.6%]), 98.5% (95% CI [93.9%, 99.7%]), and 96.2% (95% CI [90.8%, 98.6%]). The rates of possible endocarditis were of 38%, 35%, and 35% in the 3 classifications, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The 2023 Duke-ISCVID classification is highly specific for ruling out the diagnosis of definite infective endocarditis in patients who had been evaluated for IE.

Qualitative Evaluation of a Drug Terminology Server.

BACKGROUND: Although the drug is finished, identifiable, there is no universally accepted standard for naming them. The objective of this work is to evaluate qualitatively the HeTOP drug terminology server by two categories of students: (a) pharmacy students and (b) a control group. METHODS: A formal evaluation was built to measure the perception of users about the HeTOP drug server, using the three mains questions about "teaching interest", "skill interest" (or competence) and "ergonomics". RESULTS: The three pharmacy student subgroups gave the best and the worst score to the same categories. CONCLUSION: All three criteria are rated above 6.5 out of 10. The HeTOP drug terminology server is freely available to "non drug" specialists (URL: www.hetop.eu/hetop/drugs/).

Retrospective analysis of the safety of peripherally inserted catheters versus implanted port catheters during first-line treatment for patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma.

OBJECTIVES: Both peripherally inserted central catheters (PICCs) and implanted port catheters (PORTs) are commonly used for the delivery of immunochemotherapy. We compared the safety of the two types of devices in a homogeneous and monocentric population of diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) patients who were treated with first-line immunochemotherapy by evaluating the numbers of catheter-related venous thromboses (VTs) and infections that occurred in the six months after implantation according to the type of device. METHODS: Using a propensity score, the adjusted relative risk (ARR) between the type of catheter and the occurrence of catheter-related complications (infection and/or VT) of interest was retrospectively determined. RESULTS: 479 patients were enrolled (266 PORTs/213 PICCs), and 26 VTs (5.4%) and 30 infections (6.3%) were identified in the period following PICC/PORT implantation. The adjusted relative risk (ARR) of catheter-related complications (infection and/or VT) according to the type of device was 2.6 (95% CI =1.3-5.9, p = .0075). This risk increase associated with the PICC device was significant for both infections (ARR = 3.2; 95% CI = 1.3-10.9) and thrombosis (ARR = 4; 95% CI = 1.5-11.6). CONCLUSION: Our study supports the preferential use of PORTs for the first line of treatment for DLBCL patients.