These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.
Pubmed for Handhelds
PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS
Search MEDLINE/PubMed
Title: Daptomycin treatment in patients with resistant staphylococcal periprosthetic joint infection. Author: Chang YJ, Lee MS, Lee CH, Lin PC, Kuo FC. Journal: BMC Infect Dis; 2017 Nov 29; 17(1):736. PubMed ID: 29187163. Abstract: BACKGROUND: Resistant staphylococcal organisms remain a serious problem in the treatment of periprosthetic joint infection (PJI). Higher failure rates have been reported when vancomycin was used. The purpose of this study was to assess the clinical dosage, effect, and safety of daptomycin in patients with resistant staphylococcal PJI. METHODS: We retrospectively enrolled patients with hip or knee PJI who were treated with daptomycin in our institution (n = 16) from January 2013 to December 2014 with a minimum follow-up of 2 years. The patients received daptomycin when glycopeptide could not be used due to multiple resistance, any adverse reaction, chronic kidney disease stage 3 or worse, and previous treatment failure with glycopeptide or empirical therapy. RESULTS: These patients received daptomycin at a median dose of 8.3 mg∕kg per day for a median duration of 14 days. The overall treatment success rate was 87.5% (14 of 16 cases) after a median follow-up period of 27 months. In the subgroups of acute and chronic PJI, the success rate was 80% and 91%, respectively. One patient developed asymptomatic transient serum aspartate transaminase (AST) elevation. No severe side effects such as myositis, acute renal failure due to rhabdomyolysis or eosinophilic pneumonia were found in our series. CONCLUSION: Relatively high daptomycin doses combined with adequate surgical intervention were effective in treating resistant staphylococcal PJI. Daptomycin is an option worthy of consideration in PJI patients for whom glycopeptide treatment is unsuitable. Further prospective randomized comparative study is needed in the future.[Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]