Evidence Hub

Real-world Application of Oral Therapy for Infective Endocarditis: A Multicenter Retrospective, Cohort Study

Sarah R. Freling, Noah Wald-Dickler, Josh Banerjee, Catherine P. Canamar, Soodtida Tangpraphaphorn, Dara N. Bruce, K. Davar, F. Domínguez et al.

Clinical Infectious Diseases, 2023

257 participants · 53 citations

Abstract

BACKGROUND

We sought to compare the outcomes of patients treated with intravenous (IV)-only vs. oral transitional antimicrobial therapy for infective endocarditis (IE) after implementing a new Expected Practice within The Los Angeles County Department of Health Services (LAC DHS).

METHODS

We conducted a multi-centered, retrospective cohort study of adults with definite or possible IE treated with IV-only vs. oral therapy at the three acute care, public hospitals in the LAC DHS system between December 2018 to June 2022. The primary outcome was clinical success at 90 days, defined as being alive, and without recurrence of bacteremia or treatment-emergent infectious complications.

RESULTS

We identified 257 patients with IE treated with IV-only (n=211) or oral transitional (n=46) therapy who met study inclusion criteria. Study arms were similar for many demographics; however, the IV cohort was older, and had more aortic valve involvement, hemodialysis patients, and central venous catheters present. In contrast, the oral cohort had a higher percentage of IE caused by methicillin-resistant S. aureus. There was no significant difference between the groups in clinical success at 90 days or last follow-up. There was no difference in recurrence of bacteremia or readmission rates. However, patients treated with oral therapy had significantly fewer adverse events. Multivariable regression adjustments did not find significant associations between any selected variables and clinical…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a randomized trial, done in people. Its evidence level is 2 of 5 (High · randomized trial). Randomized trials of a reasonable size are the strongest single-study design. Reported size: 257 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free