4.5 Article

Telavancin for refractory methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus bacteremia and infective endocarditis

期刊

INFECTIOUS DISEASES
卷 47, 期 6, 页码 379-384

出版社

TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.3109/00365548.2014.995696

关键词

Bacteremia; infective endocarditis; MRSA; salvage therapy; telavancin

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) bacteremia and infective endocarditis (IE) have become increasingly difficult to treat over the past decade, with suboptimal response rates of less than 50%. Although vancomycin and daptomycin are standard therapeutic options, treatment failures with either or both agents are common. Telavancin is a lipoglycopeptide antibiotic with activity against MRSA. In vitro, telavancin displays bactericidal activity and has lower minimum inhibitory concentrations to MRSA than vancomycin. Methods: We present a retrospective, case-series report of 14 patients treated with telavancin for refractory MRSA bacteremia with and without IE at our institution from 9 September 2010 to 2 April 2012. Results: Of the 14 patients who received telavancin for refractory MRSA bacteremia and IE, eight survived their inpatient admission and were able to be followed for 30 days. The overall survival rate was 57% (n = 8). Of the eight surviving patients, five were diagnosed with MRSA IE and the remaining three were diagnosed with complicated MRSA bacteremia. All six patients who did not survive the inpatient admission were diagnosed with left-sided IE involving the mitral valves. Conclusions: This retrospective case series provides clinical evidence for the use of telavancin as a treatment option for refractory MRSA bacteremia and IE. With limited effective agents in the treatment of MRSA-complicated bacteremia and IE, telavancin represents a potential treatment option. Further randomized, controlled trials are necessary to define the optimal role of telavancin in the treatment of MRSA bacteremia and IE.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据