Vikram, Holenarasipur R.

AbstractBackgroundEnterococcal cardiovascular implantable electronic device (CIED) infections are not well characterized.MethodsData from the Multicenter Electrophysiologic Device Infection Cohort, a prospective study of CIED infections, were used for descriptive analysis of adults with enterococcal CIED infections.ResultsOf 433 patients, 21 (4.8%) had enterococcal CIED infection. Median age was 71 years. Twelve patients (57%) had permanent pacemakers, five (24%) implantable cardioverter defibrillators, and four (19%) biventricular devices. Median time from last procedure to infection was 570 days. CIED‐related bloodstream infections occurred in three patients (14%) and 18 (86%) had infective endocarditis (IE), 14 (78%) of which were definite by the modified Duke criteria. IE cases were classified as follows: valvular IE, four; lead IE, eight; both valve and lead IE, six. Vegetations were demonstrated by transesophageal echocardiography in 17 patients (81%). Blood cultures were positive in 19/19 patients with confirmed results. The most common antimicrobial regimen was penicillin plus an aminoglycoside (33%). Antibiotics were given for a median of 43 days. Only 14 patients (67%) underwent device removal. There was one death during the index hospitalization with four additional deaths within 6 months (overall mortality 24%). There were no relapses.ConclusionsEnterococci caused 4.8% of CIED infections in our cohort. Based on the late onset after device placement or manipulation, most infections were likely hematogenous in origin. IE was the most common infection syndrome. Only 67% of patients underwent device removal. At 6 months follow‐up, no CIED infection relapses had occurred, but overall mortality was 24%.

Case Report.Aspergillusosteomyelitis is a destructive and progressive infection that has been described both in immunosuppressed and in immunocompetent hosts. We describe a case of lumbar vertebral osteomyelitis in a 61-year-old immunocompetent patient due toAspergillus nidulansthat was successfully treated with a combination of extensive surgical debridement, spinal stabilization, and a prolonged course of antifungal therapy. Imaging demonstrated findings consistent with L3 discitis. The biopsy grewAspergillusfungus and was treated with vorconizole. Imaging showed progressive destructive osteomyelitis at L3-L4. Patient underwent anterior L3 and L4 partial corpectomies, anterior interbody fusion L3-L5, and posterior T11-S2 pedicle screw and rod fixation. Antifungal treatment resulted in resolution of infection.Aspergillusmarkers remain negative. One year following definitive treatment, the patient’s back pain remains resolved.Conclusion. Definitive surgical resection of the infection, spinal stabilization, and aggressive antifungal therapy were required to eradicate the infection.

Human ocular Dirofilariasis is a relatively rare, zoonotic disease, caused by a filarial nematode, Dirofilaria repens. This parasitic infestation usually presents as a subconjunctival nodule with hyperemia. The authors present a case of subconjunctival dirofilariasis in a 91-year-old gentleman, who presented with manifestations of orbital cellulitis. The live worm was surgically removed and identified to be D. repens.

Abstract Background Unlike enterococcal native and prosthetic valve infective endocarditis (IE), enterococcal CIED infections are not well described. Methods Data from the Multicenter Electrophysiologic Device Infection Collaboration (MEDIC), a prospective, observational, multinational cohort study of CIED infections, were used to provide a descriptive analysis of adult patients with CIED infections due to enterococcal species. Results Of 433 patients, 21 (4.8%) were diagnosed with enterococcal CIED infection. Specific data on enterococcal species and antimicrobial susceptibilities were not recorded. The mean age was 70.8 years. No patient had previous CIED infection. Twelve patients (57%) had permanent pacemakers, 5 (24%) had implantable cardioverter defibrillators, and 4 (19%) had biventricular devices. Among the 21 infections, 3 (14%) were categorized as CIED-related bloodstream infections and 18 (86%) as IE; no patient had isolated pocket infection. Of the IE cases, four were valvular IE, eight were lead IE, and six were both. Fourteen cases of IE (78%) were definite by the modified Duke criteria. Median time from last device procedure to infection was 510 days (range 37–2,952 days). The most common presenting symptom was fever (48%); five patients (24%) exhibited local signs of pocket infection. All 21 patients underwent TEE with vegetations demonstrated in 17 (81%). Blood cultures grew enterococci from all patients. The most common antimicrobial regimen was a penicillin plus aminoglycoside (38%); two patients (9.5%) received ampicillin + ceftriaxone. Antibiotics were given for a median of 43 days. Only 14 patients (67%) had complete device removal; the seven patients retaining their device were judged to be at high risk for extraction. There was one death during the index hospital stay with four additional patients dying over the 6 months after therapy (overall mortality 24%); two of the seven patients retaining their CIED died. Conclusion Enterococci caused 4.8% of all CIED infections in our cohort. Most infections appeared to be hematogenous in origin with late onset. IE was the most common infectious syndrome. A penicillin plus aminoglycoside, given for 6 weeks, was the most frequent therapy. Only 67% of patients underwent device removal. At 6 months follow-up, no relapses had occurred but overall mortality was 24%. Disclosures J. E. Peacock Jr., Pfizer, Inc.: Shareholder, Owns common stock in Pfizer which was inherited and held in a trust. M. R. Sohail, TyRx Inc.: Investigator, Research support. Medtronic Inc.: Investigator, Research support. Medtronic Inc.: Consultant, Speaker honorarium. Spectranetics: Consultant, Speaker honorarium. Boston Scientific Corp: Consultant, Speaker honorarium. L. M. Baddour, UpToDate: Collaborator, Royalty payment. J. M. Miro, Abbvie: Consultant and Grant Investigator, Consulting honoraria and Research grant. Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultant and Grant Investigator, Consulting honoraria and Research grant. Genentech: Consultant and Grant Investigator, Consulting honoraria and Research grant. Medtronic: Consultant and Grant Investigator, Consulting honoraria and Research grant. Novartis: Consultant and Grant Investigator, Consulting honoraria and Research grant. Gilead Sciences: Consultant and Grant Investigator, Consulting honoraria and Research grant. Pfizer: Consultant and Grant Investigator, Consulting honoraria and Research grant. ViiV Healthcare: Consultant and Grant Investigator, Consulting honoraria and Research grant. A. J. Greenspon, Medtronic: Consultant, Speaker honorarium. Boston Scientific: Consultant, Speaker honorarium. St. Jude: Consultant, Speaker honorarium. R. G. Carrillo, St. Jude Medical Group: Speaker’s Bureau, Research support. Spectranetics: Consultant, Speaker honorarium. Sorin Group: Speaker’s Bureau, None. Boston Scientific Corp: Speaker’s Bureau, None. D. Z. Uslan, Medtronic: Investigator, Research support. Boston Scientific: Consultant, Speaker honorarium.

AbstractActive infection in the recipient is considered a relative contraindication for solid organ transplantation. However, heart transplantation (HT) can be curative in patients with ventricular assist device infections. For patients with infective endocarditis (IE), valve replacement is part of the management strategy based on emergent, acute, or elective indications. HT has been utilized as an uncommon and sporadic treatment option for carefully selected patients with refractory or recurrent IE after all other surgical treatment options have been exhausted or are not feasible. Herein, we review 19 published cases of IE in whom HT was undertaken in the setting of ongoing active infection with reported good outcomes. We attempt to propose general criteria for HT in the setting of IE and discuss challenges and hurdles that clinicians might encounter when considering HT for active IE in the absence of robust data or clearly defined criteria.

AbstractBackgroundHeart transplantation has been shown to be a safe and effective intervention for progressive cardiomyopathy from chronic Chagas disease. However, in the presence of the immunosuppression required for heart transplantation, the likelihood of Chagas disease reactivation is significant. Reactivation may cause myocarditis resulting in allograft dysfunction and the rapid onset of congestive heart failure. Reactivation rates have been well documented in Latin America; however, there is a paucity of data regarding the risk in non‐endemic countries.MethodsWe present our experience with 31 patients with chronic Chagas disease who underwent orthotopic heart transplantation in the United States from 2012 to 2016. Patients were monitored following a standard schedule.ResultsOf the 31 patients, 19 (61%) developed evidence of reactivation. Among the 19 patients, a majority (95%) were identified by laboratory monitoring using polymerase chain reaction testing. One patient was identified after the onset of clinical symptoms of reactivation. All subjects with evidence of reactivation were alive at follow‐up (median: 60 weeks).ConclusionsTransplant programs in the United States are encouraged to implement a monitoring program for heart transplant recipients with Chagas disease. Our experience using a preemptive approach of monitoring for Chagas disease reactivation was effective at identifying reactivation before symptoms developed.

Objective. To determine whether results of the nasopharyngeal FilmArray respiratory panel (NP-FARP) influenced antibiotic decisions. Methods. We reviewed the medical records of nonintensive care unit (ICU) inpatients that had an NP-FARP performed at our institution between June 2013 and June 2014. The inpatient records were reviewed 48 hours after the NP-FARP for the following data: demographic information; NP-FARP, serum procalcitonin, and methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus nasal swab (MRSA NS) results; antibiotics prior and post-48 hours of the NP-FARP result; and the current immunosuppression status. Clinical outcome data were not obtained. Patients were categorized into those who had a positive (+) or a negative (−) NP-FARP. We further subdivided these two categories into groups A, B, and C based on the antibiotic modifications 48 hours after their NP-FARP result. Group A included patients who were never initiated on antimicrobial therapy. Patients whose antibiotics were discontinued or deescalated were placed in group B. Patients with antibiotic escalation or continuation without change constituted group C. We compared and analyzed groups A, B, and C in the (+) and (−) NP-FARP cohorts. Results. A total of 545 patients were included. There were 143 (26%) patients with positive and 402 (74%) patients with negative NP-FARPs. Comparison of groups A, B, and C between those with a (+) and (−) NP-FARP were as follows: (+) A and (−) A, 28/143 (20%) and 84/402 (21%); (+) B and (−) B, 59/143 (41%) and 147/402 (37%); and (+) C and (−) C, 56/143 (39%) and 171/402 (43%), respectively. We found no statistically significant differences between groups (+) A versus (−) A, (+) B versus (−) B, and (+) C versus (−) C with respect to age, gender, MRSA NS result, procalcitonin result, or concurrent immunosuppression. Conclusion. In non-ICU inpatients, NP-FARP alone or in combination with procalcitonin or MRSA NS did not influence antibiotic decisions during the study period.

Objective To explore differences in clinical manifestations and outcomes in those patients who develop infection after undergoing initial implantation versus reoperation. Methods We compared cases of cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED) infection based on initial implantation versus reoperation from 11 centres. Results There were 432 patients with CIED infection, 178 occurring after initial device placement and 254 after repeat reoperation. No differences were seen in age, sex or device type. Those with infection after initial implant had a higher Charlson Comorbidity Score (median 3 (IQR 2–6) vs 2 (IQR 1–4), p<0.001), shorter time since last procedure (median 8.9 months (IQR 0.9–33.3) vs 19.5 months (IQR 1.1–62.9), p<0.0001) and fewer leads (2.0±0.6vs 2.5±0.9, p<0.001). Pocket infections were more likely to occur after a reoperation (70.1%vs48.9%, p<0.001) and coagulase negative staphylococci (CoNS) was the most frequently isolated organism in this group (p=0.029). In contrast, initial implant infections were more likely to present with higher white cell count (10.5±5.1 g/dL vs 9.5±5.4 g/dL, p=0.025), metastatic foci of infection (16.9%vs8.7%, p=0.016) and sepsis (30.9%vs19.3%, p=0.006). There were no differences in in-hospital (7.9%vs5.2%, p=0.31) or 6-month mortality (21.9%vs14.0%, p=0.056). Conclusions CIED infections after initial device implant occur earlier, more aggressively, and often due to Staphylococcus aureus. In contrast, CIED infections after reoperation occur later, are due to CoNS, and have more indolent manifestations with primary localisation to the pocket.

AbstractBackgroundPublished guidelines mandate complete device removal in cases of cardiovascular implantable electronic device (CIED) infection. Clinical predictors of successful salvage of infected CIEDs have not been defined.MethodsData from the Multicenter Electrophysiologic Device Infection Collaboration, a prospective, observational, multinational cohort study of CIED infection, were used to investigate whether clinical predictors of successful salvage of infected devices could be identified.ResultsOf 433 adult patients with CIED infections, 306 (71%) underwent immediate device explantation. Medical management with device retention and antimicrobial therapy was initially attempted in 127 patients (29%). “Early failure” of attempted salvage occurred in 74 patients (58%) who subsequently underwent device explantation during the index hospitalization. The remaining 53 patients (42%) in the attempted salvage group retained their CIED. Twenty‐six (49%) had resolution of CIED infection (successful salvage group) whereas 27 patients (51%) experienced “late” salvage failure. Upon comparing the salvage failure group, early and late (N = 101), to the group experiencing successful salvage of an infected CIED (N = 26), no clinical or laboratory predictors of successful salvage were identified. However, by univariate analysis, coagulase‐negative staphylococci as infecting pathogens (P = 0.0439) and the presence of a lead vegetation (P = 0.024) were associated with overall failed salvage.ConclusionsIn patients with definite CIED infections, clinical and laboratory variables cannot predict successful device salvage. Until new data are forthcoming, device explantation should remain a mandatory and early management intervention in patients with CIED infection in keeping with existing expert guidelines unless medical contraindications exist or patients refuse device removal.