Infective endocarditis due to Streptococcus dysgalactiae: clinical presentation and microbiological features

Bläckberg, Anna; Nilson, Bo; Özenci, Volkan; Olaison, Lars; Rasmussen, Magnus

doi:10.1007/s10096-018-3367-7

Cited by 17 publications

(9 citation statements)

References 31 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The interval between the onset of the first symptom and definite diagnosis can be long. Although this interval was reported to be shorter in literature (2–15 days), 4 our data were quite different. The diagnosis of IE seems to be more time‐consuming in China.…”

Section: Commentcontrasting

confidence: 88%

Outcomes of surgical treatment for active infective endocarditis under COVID‐19 pandemic

Miao

Zhang

et al. 2022

Journal of Cardiac Surgery

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‐19) pandemic has been and will continue to be a challenge to the healthcare system worldwide. In this context, we aimed to discuss the impact of the COVID‐19 pandemic on the diagnosis, timing, and prognosis of surgical treatment for active infective endocarditis (IE) during the pandemic and share our coping strategy. Methods A total of 39 patients were admitted for active IE in the year 2020. The number of the same period last year was 50. Medical information of these two groups was extracted from our surgical database. Data were compared between the two groups and differences with or without statistical significance were discussed. Results In the pandemic year, we admitted fewer transferred patients (64.1% vs. 80%, p = .094). Timespan for diagnosis were prolonged (60 vs. 34.5 days, p = .081). More patients were admitted in emergency (41% vs. 20%, p = .030) More patients had heart failure (74.4% vs. 40%, p = .001), sepsis (69.2% vs. 42.0%, p = .018), or cardiogenic shock (25.6% vs. 8.0%, p = .038). Overall surgical risk (EuroSCORE II) was higher (4.15% vs. 3.24%, p = .019) and more commando surgery was performed (7.7% vs. 2.0%, p = .441). However, we did not see more postoperative complications, and early mortality was not worse either (0 vs. 4%, p = .502). Conclusions The negative impact of the COVID‐19 pandemic on the clinical practice of surgical treatment for active IE was multifaceted. However, with the preservation of the effectiveness of multidisciplinary IE surgical team, the early outcomes were comparable with those in the normal years.

show abstract

Section: Commentcontrasting

confidence: 88%

Outcomes of surgical treatment for active infective endocarditis under COVID‐19 pandemic

Miao

Zhang

et al. 2022

Journal of Cardiac Surgery

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Olmos et al reported in 2015 high rates of valve insufficiency in 181 cases of S. bovis and viridans group streptococci IE [17]. We hypothesize that the longer time to diagnosis after the onset of symptoms in the ANHS IE group than in the BHS or staphylococcal IE group, as recently described [18], could have resulted in more valve damage at the time of diagnosis. The increased frequency of damage in the ANHS IE group could also be one explanation for the higher rate of surgery in this group, whereas the high rate of complications in the BHS IE group might have delayed surgery because of the elevated risk of perioperative death.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 52%

Virulence of beta-hemolytic streptococci in infective endocarditis

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Streptococci involved in infective endocarditis (IE) primarily comprise alpha-or non-hemolytic streptococci (ANHS). Moreover, beta-hemolytic streptococci (BHS) can be involved, and guidelines recommend the addition of gentamicin for the first 2 weeks of treatment and the consideration of early surgery in such cases. This study compared the morbidity and mortality associated with IE depending on the microorganisms involved (BHS, ANHS, staphylococci, and enterococci). Methods We conducted a retrospective observational study between 2012 and 2017 in a single hospital in France. The endpoints were overall in-hospital mortality, 1-year mortality and the occurrence of complications. ResultsWe analyzed 316 episodes of definite IE including 150 (38%), 96 (25%), 46 (12%), and 24 cases (6%) of staphylococcal, ANHS, enterococcal, and BHS IE, respectively. In-hospital mortality was significantly higher in the staphylococcal (n = 40; 26.7%) and BHS groups (n = 6; 25.0%) than in the ANHS (n = 9; 9.4%) and enterococcal groups (n = 5; 10.9%) (all p < 0.01). The rates of septic shock and cerebral emboli were also higher in the BHS group than in the ANHS group [n = 7 (29.2%) vs. n = 3 (3.1%), p < 0.001; n = 7 (29.2%) vs. n = 12 (12.5%); p = 0.05, respectively]. Conclusion This study confirmed that BHS IE has a more severe prognosis than ANHS IE. The virulence of BHS may be similar to that of staphylococci, justifying increased monitoring of these patients and more 'aggressive' treatments such as early surgery.

show abstract

“…En la otra, las estructuras extracelulares bacterianas contribuyen a la formación de una biopelícula que se forma en la superficie de los dispositivos médicos implantados. En ambos casos las adherencias de estafilococos son importantes factores de virulencia [14][15][16] .…”

Section: Especies Bacterianas Implicadas En El Desarrollo De Infecciones Posoperatoriasunclassified

Protocolo de profilaxis antibiótica para pacientes dentales en riesgo de infección

Astudillo-Crespo

Alvear-Córdova

2022

Odontol Sanmarquina

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

La profilaxis antibiótica involucra el uso de fármacos en una etapa preoperatoria de atención odontológica, con la finalidad específica de contribuir a la prevención de infecciones sistémicas como la endocarditis infecciosa (EI) asociada a bacteriemias transitorias por procedimientos odontológicos que implican sangrado en pacientes con alto riesgo de complicación por su condición sistémica cardiaca o no cardiaca. Esta complicación potencial inflama el revestimiento interno de las válvulas cardiacas, por proliferación de microorganismos específicos, y aunque es infrecuente es responsable de una elevada tasa de morbilidad y mortalidad. En el año 2007, la Asociación Estadounidense del Corazón (AHA), publica la última actualización vigente en la literatura sobre las recomendaciones y directrices aplicadas para el uso de profilaxis antibiótica. El objetivo de esta revisión pretende desarrollar una síntesis de evidencia existente seguida de un balance honesto de los riesgos y beneficios de forma individual sobre el uso de este protocolo. Se realizó una búsqueda digital integral en idioma español e inglés sobre los protocolos de profilaxis antibiótica en pacientes con riesgo de infección. Se incluyeron bases de datos como: MEDLINE, PUBMED y SciELO, adicionalmente se tomaron como referentes de partida las recomendaciones de la AHA. Se concluye con gran énfasis y soporte de la literatura actual, que los beneficios del uso de profilaxis antibiótica en un momento preoperatorio superan los posibles riesgos de resistencia bacteriana y anafilaxia, por lo que son totalmente justificables y requeridos para los pacientes adultos y niños inmunológicamente comprometidos.

show abstract

Infective endocarditis due to Streptococcus dysgalactiae: clinical presentation and microbiological features

Cited by 17 publications

References 31 publications

Outcomes of surgical treatment for active infective endocarditis under COVID‐19 pandemic

Outcomes of surgical treatment for active infective endocarditis under COVID‐19 pandemic

Virulence of beta-hemolytic streptococci in infective endocarditis

Protocolo de profilaxis antibiótica para pacientes dentales en riesgo de infección

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About