BackgroundHost factors and complications have been associated with higher mortality in infective endocarditis (IE). We sought to develop and validate a model of clinical characteristics to predict 6‐month mortality in IE.Methods and ResultsUsing a large multinational prospective registry of definite IE (International Collaboration on Endocarditis [ICE]–Prospective Cohort Study [PCS], 2000–2006, n=4049), a model to predict 6‐month survival was developed by Cox proportional hazards modeling with inverse probability weighting for surgery treatment and was internally validated by the bootstrapping method. This model was externally validated in an independent prospective registry (ICE‐PLUS, 2008–2012, n=1197). The 6‐month mortality was 971 of 4049 (24.0%) in the ICE‐PCS cohort and 342 of 1197 (28.6%) in the ICE‐PLUS cohort. Surgery during the index hospitalization was performed in 48.1% and 54.0% of the cohorts, respectively. In the derivation model, variables related to host factors (age, dialysis), IE characteristics (prosthetic or nosocomial IE, causative organism, left‐sided valve vegetation), and IE complications (severe heart failure, stroke, paravalvular complication, and persistent bacteremia) were independently associated with 6‐month mortality, and surgery was associated with a lower risk of mortality (Harrell's C statistic 0.715). In the validation model, these variables had similar hazard ratios (Harrell's C statistic 0.682), with a similar, independent benefit of surgery (hazard ratio 0.74, 95% CI 0.62–0.89). A simplified risk model was developed by weight adjustment of these variables.ConclusionsSix‐month mortality after IE is ≈25% and is predicted by host factors, IE characteristics, and IE complications. Surgery during the index hospitalization is associated with lower mortality but is performed less frequently in the highest risk patients. A simplified risk model may be used to identify specific risk subgroups in IE.

Our experience suggests that high-dose daptomycin may be a safe therapeutic option in staphylococcal CIED endocarditis and may be associated with high microbiological responses and clinical success.

Cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED) infections are an emerging clinical problem. A growing number of dedicated and high quality clinical studies are currently being generated. We here review the most recent advances in the diagnosis and treatment of patients with CIED infection including intracardiac lead endocarditis. We discuss the current etiology and risk factors, and appraise the major diagnostic issues, describing our center's therapeutic approach. We also address the management of CIED infection complications.

The use of heparin has been shown to decrease the mortality in hospitalized patients with severe COVID-19. The aim of our study was to evaluate the clinical impact of venous thromboembolism prophylaxis with fondaparinux versus enoxaparin among 100 hospitalized COVID-19 patients. The incidence of pulmonary embolism, deep venous thrombosis, major bleeding (MB), clinically relevant non-MB, acute respiratory distress syndrome, and in-hospital mortality was compared between patients on fondaparinux versus enoxaparin therapy. The 2 groups were homogeneous for demographic, laboratory, and clinical characteristics. In a median follow-up of 28 (IQR: 12–45) days, no statistically significant difference in venous thromboembolism (14.5% vs. 5.3%; P = 0.20), MB and clinically relevant non-MB (3.2% vs. 5.3%, P = 0.76), ARDS (17.7% vs. 15.8%; P = 0.83), and in-hospital mortality (9.7% vs. 10.5%; P = 0.97) has been shown between the enoxaparin group versus the fondaparinux group. Our preliminary results support the hypothesis of a safe and effective use of fondaparinux among patients with COVID-19 hospitalized in internal medicine units.

Background: Since the outbreak of novel coronavirus SARS-CoV2 around the world, great attention has been paid to the effects of such antithrombotic drugs as heparinoids, because they have antiviral action in vitro and antithrombotic actions in vivo. We conducted a retrospective analysis in inpatients with confirmed COVID-19 on the anti-inflammatory and antithrombotic effects of enoxaparin and fondaparinux at prophylactic doses. Methods: This retrospective cohort study used patients with confirmed COVID-19 during the first months of the Italian outbreak from February 18 to April 30, 2020. Our aim was to compare clinical characteristics, prophylactic treatment, markers of inflammation, and thrombotic outcomes in inpatients positive for SARS-CoV2 during hospitalization associated with thromboprophylaxis with enoxaparin (40 mg or 60 mg once daily) or fondaparinux (2.5 mg once daily). Statistical analysis was conducted with using MatLab R2016B and ad hoc functions. Results: There were no significatant differences in clinical characteristics between patients that used enoxaparin or fondaparinux as thromboprophylaxis for SARS-CoV2. No differences were found in D-dimer and fibrinogen levels either, which were used as markers of inflammation during the infection at testing on admission and after 3 weeks.Significant differences in CRP, IL6, and LDH were found in patients after 21 days' treatment. Discussion: Increased levels of fibrinogen and D-dimer in patients with confirmed COVID-19 have been reported in several studies. Our results showed that anti-inflammatory effects of fondaparinux and enoxaparin after 3 weeks of prophylactic treatment were similar when levels of fibrinogen and D-dimer were considered. Furthermore, levels of CRP showed a decrease in patients treated with enoxaparin and fondaparinux, although the decrease in the fondaparinux group seems to be more relevant.