Schweizer, Marin L.

Abstract Objective: Suppressive antibiotic therapy (SAT) is used to prevent recurrent prosthetic joint infections (PJI) among patients who undergo debridement, antibiotics, and implant retention (DAIR). We aimed to assess SAT outcomes among younger, immunocompetent patients. Design: Retrospective cohort study. Patients: Immunocompetent patients <65 years of age who received DAIR for PJI of the hip, knee, or shoulder. Setting: Veterans Affairs hospitals. Methods: SAT was divided into short-term (oral antibiotics given for <3 months after guideline concordant therapy) and long-term SAT (>3 months to 5 years of oral antibiotics). The primary outcome was treatment failure (TF) and mortality combined. SAT was a time-dependent covariate in Cox proportional hazards models. Results: Of the 938 patients, 15% received short-term SAT, 20% received long-term SAT, and 65% did not receive SAT. Short- and long-term SAT were significantly associated with decreased hazards of TF or mortality (short-term SAT adjusted hazard ratio (aHR) = 0.27; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.11, 0.67; Long-term SAT aHR = 0.52; 95% CI: 0.30, 0.89). Short-term SAT was significantly associated with C. difficile infection (aHR: 3.47; 95% CI: 1.38, 8.74). Short-term SAT (aHR: 7.83; 95% CI: 4.80, 12.77) and long-term SAT (aHR: 1.68; 95% CI: 1.19, 2.38) were significantly associated with antibiotic-associated diarrhea. Long-term SAT was not significantly associated with TF alone (aHR = 0.61; 95% CI: 0.32, 1.16). Conclusions: SAT was significantly associated with decreased death or TF and increased side effects. Benefits and risks must be weighed before prescribing SAT to younger, immunocompetent patients.

Abstract Background 2-stage exchange (2SE) surgery is often used to treat chronic prosthetic joint infections (PJI). IDSA guidelines do not recommend oral antibiotic suppression after 2SE. However, a recent randomized trial suggested that oral antibiotics for 3 months after arthroplasty reimplantation may prevent recurrent PJI. Objective: To compare rates of treatment failure (i.e., recurrent PJI) and adverse reactions (ARs) among patients who received &lt; 1 month of antibiotics directly after reimplantation to those who received 1-3 months of antibiotics following reimplantation (extended antibiotics). Methods This retrospective cohort study included patients with hip, knee, or shoulder PJI who underwent 2SE at 83 VA hospitals between the years 2003-2017. PJI was defined using administrative codes and microbiology data. Patients were followed for 5 years to assess treatment failure (TF) and ARs. TF was defined as recurrent PJI, debridement, or reoperation. ARs included Clostridioides difficile infections (CDI), or antibiotic associated diarrhea (AAD) during or 72 hours after antibiotics. Chi-square tests were used to compare outcomes. Cumulative incidence function curves were created to compare TF rates between those who did and did not receive extended antibiotic treatment, incorporating the competing risks of TF and death. Results Of the 433 patients, most (97%) received &lt; 1 month of oral antibiotics and 3% received extended antibiotics. The 15 patients who received extended antibiotics had similar rates of TF and ARs compared with patients who received &lt; 1 month of oral antibiotics (Table). However, there was a trend toward higher rates of CDI (6.7% vs. 3.8%) and AAD (13.3% vs. 9.6%) among those who received extended antibiotics. There was no difference in TF comparing extended antibiotics with &lt; 1 month of antibiotics, accounting for death (Figure). Table: Treatment Failure and Adverse Reactions Among Those Who Did and Did Not Receive Extended Antibiotics Conclusion Few patients received extended oral antibiotics in the study period. There were no statistically significant differences in TF or ARs between the 2 groups. Yet, there was a trend toward higher rates of ARs among the extended antibiotic group. Future prospective studies should assess both the potential benefits and ARs associated with extended antibiotics among patients undergoing 2SE surgery. Disclosures Marin L. Schweizer, PhD, 3M (Grant/Research Support)PDI (Grant/Research Support) Bruce Alexander, PharmD, Bruce Alexander Consulting (Independent Contractor) Daniel Suh, MS MPH, General Electric (Shareholder)Merck (Shareholder)Moderna (Shareholder)Smile Direct Club (Shareholder) Aaron J. Tande, MD, UpToDate.com (Other Financial or Material Support, Honoraria for medical writing) Andrew Pugely, MD, MBA, Globus Medical (Research Grant or Support)Medtronic (Consultant)United Healthcare (Consultant)

Abstract Background Most articles on hand hygiene report either overall compliance or compliance with specific hand hygiene moments. These moments vary in the level of risk to patients if healthcare workers (HCWs) are noncompliant. We assessed how task type affected HCWs’ hand hygiene compliance. Methods We linked consecutive tasks individual HCWs performed during the Strategies to Reduce Transmission of Antimicrobial Resistant Bacteria in Intensive Care Units (STAR*ICU) study into care sequences and identified task pairs—2 consecutive tasks and the intervening hand hygiene opportunity. We defined tasks as critical and/or contaminating. We determined the odds of critical and contaminating tasks occurring, and the odds of hand hygiene compliance using logistic regression for transition with a random effect adjusting for isolation precautions, glove use, HCW type, and compliance at prior opportunities. Results Healthcare workers were less likely to do hand hygiene before critical tasks than before other tasks (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 0.97 [95% confidence interval {CI}, .95–.98]) and more likely to do hand hygiene after contaminating tasks than after other tasks (aOR, 1.12 [95% CI, 1.10–1.13]). Nurses were more likely to perform both critical and contaminating tasks, but nurses’ hand hygiene compliance was better than physicians’ (aOR, 0.94 [95% CI, .91–.97]) and other HCWs’ compliance (aOR, 0.87 [95% CI, .87–.94]). Conclusions Healthcare workers were more likely to do hand hygiene after contaminating tasks than before critical tasks, suggesting that habits and a feeling of disgust may influence hand hygiene compliance. This information could be incorporated into interventions to improve hand hygiene practices, particularly before critical tasks and after contaminating tasks.