Halouska Mason A, Van Roy Zachary A, Lang Amanda N, Hilbers Jacey, Hewlett Angela L, Cortes-Penfield Nicolas W
Division of Infectious Diseases, University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha, USA.
Cureus. 2022 Jul 18;14(7):e26982. doi: 10.7759/cureus.26982. eCollection 2022 Jul.
Background and objective Recent studies have challenged the notion that prolonged intravenous (IV) antibiotics are preferable to oral antibiotics for treating musculoskeletal infections. Our institution's orthopedic surgery and orthopedic infectious disease (ID) groups have established consensus criteria for the use of oral antibiotics in musculoskeletal infections. In this study, we examine one-year and two-year outcomes of the selective use of oral antibiotics for musculoskeletal infections in a real-world setting. Methods We conducted a single-center retrospective analysis of adults seen in our orthopedic ID clinic over a six-month period for the first episode of surgically managed osteomyelitis, native joint septic arthritis (NJSA), prosthetic joint infection (PJI), or other musculoskeletal hardware infection with an established microbiologic etiology who received surgical interventions and >2 weeks of antimicrobial treatment. Patients were evaluated for treatment failure at one year and two years following their index surgery, which we defined as death, unplanned surgery, or the initiation of chronic antibiotic suppression. Results One-year treatment failure rates were 0/23 (0%) in patients who switched to oral therapy versus 6/17 (35%) in patients who remained on IV treatment. Two-year treatment failure rates were 0/23 (0%) in patients who switched to oral therapy versus 8/17 (47%) in patients who remained on IV treatment. Conclusions Our consensus criteria for the switch to oral antibiotics for musculoskeletal infections identified patients who went on to have excellent outcomes at one year and two years, suggesting that these criteria can effectively identify patients at low risk for treatment failure. Collaboration between ID specialists and orthopedic surgeons to select antimicrobial regimens can avoid significant burdens, costs, and complications associated with prolonged IV therapy.
背景与目的 近期研究对以下观点提出了质疑:在治疗肌肉骨骼感染方面,长期静脉注射抗生素优于口服抗生素。我们机构的骨科手术团队和骨科传染病(ID)团队已制定了在肌肉骨骼感染中使用口服抗生素的共识标准。在本研究中,我们考察了在实际临床环境中选择性使用口服抗生素治疗肌肉骨骼感染的1年和2年结局。方法 我们对在骨科ID门诊就诊的成年人进行了一项单中心回顾性分析,这些患者在6个月期间因首次发生的需手术治疗的骨髓炎、原发性关节败血症(NJSA)、人工关节感染(PJI)或其他具有明确微生物病因的肌肉骨骼硬件感染接受了手术干预和超过2周的抗菌治疗。在患者接受索引手术后1年和2年评估治疗失败情况,我们将治疗失败定义为死亡、非计划手术或开始慢性抗生素抑制治疗。结果 转为口服治疗的患者1年治疗失败率为0/23(0%),而继续接受静脉治疗的患者为6/17(35%)。转为口服治疗的患者2年治疗失败率为0/23(0%),而继续接受静脉治疗的患者为8/17(47%)。结论 我们关于肌肉骨骼感染转为口服抗生素治疗的共识标准识别出了在1年和2年时结局良好的患者,这表明这些标准能够有效识别治疗失败风险较低的患者。ID专科医生与骨科医生合作选择抗菌治疗方案可避免与长期静脉治疗相关的重大负担、成本和并发症。