A Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial on Therapeutic Effects of Teicoplanin and Vancomycin after Cardiac Surgery due to MRSA infective endocarditis in ICU Patients

IRCMJ logo

Keywords

Infective endocarditis
Teicoplanin
Vancomycin

How to Cite

khondabi, Behzadnia, N., Ahmadi, Z. H., Chitsazan, M., Tabarsi, P., Jamaati, H., Bahadorbeigi, A., & Hashemian, S. M. (2021). A Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial on Therapeutic Effects of Teicoplanin and Vancomycin after Cardiac Surgery due to MRSA infective endocarditis in ICU Patients. Iranian Red Crescent Medical Journal, 23(1). https://doi.org/10.32592/ircmj.2021.23.1.69

Abstract

Background: Infective endocarditis (IE) is a relatively rare disease but with significant rates of morbidity and mortality. The goal of IE treatment is to eradicate the foci of infection, including antimicrobial therapy with or without surgery. The decision on the selection of an empirical therapy regimen is diverse and based on patient characteristics. Vancomycin and teicoplanin are bacteriostatic glycopeptide antibiotics used for the treatment of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) infections, including MRSA-IE, and patients allergic to penicillin who are infected with methicillin-sensitive Staphylococcus aureus.

Objective: The current study aimed to compare the efficacy and adverse effects of vancomycin and teicoplanin in the treatment of patients with MRSA-IE.

Materials and Methods: This parallel, randomized, and controlled trial study was carried out on the efficacy and safety of teicoplanin versus vancomycin in the treatment of MRSA endocarditis within August 2012 and April 2017. The present study recruited adult patients with a definite or possible diagnosis of IE based on the Modified Duke Criteria. A central computer-generated random number list was used to allocate the patients (1:1) to the treatment with teicoplanin or vancomycin. Vancomycin was intravenously administered at a dose of 30 mg/kg/day in two doses. Teicoplanin was administered at a loading dose of 6-12 mg/kg every 12 h in four doses and then continued once a day.

Results: Out of 86 patients screened with suspected IE, 66 patients were randomly assigned to the vancomycin (n=33) and teicoplanin (n=33) groups. The mean age values of the study subjects were 41±11.8 and 39±13.1 years in the vancomycin and teicoplanin groups, respectively. In addition, 27 patients (81.8%) in the vancomycin group met the criteria for microbiological cure, compared to 25 subjects (89.3%) in the teicoplanin group. In this regard, the observed difference was not statistically significant (P=0.41). Moreover, 26 (78.8%) and 23 (82.1%) patients in the vancomycin and teicoplanin groups achieved clinical cure, respectively (P=0.97). Overall, the patients in the vancomycin group experienced more adverse events in comparison to those of the teicoplanin group (P=0.04). The rate of acute kidney injury over time, especially in the first week of therapy, was higher in the vancomycin group than that reported for the teicoplanin group (P=0.05). Six and four patients in the vancomycin and teicoplanin groups required dialysis, respectively. The use of dialysis was not different between the two groups (P=0.88). Seven (21.3%) and five (17.9%) patients in the vancomycin and teicoplanin groups died, respectively, which was not statistically different between the two groups (P=0.74).

Conclusions: It was concluded that the administration of vancomycin or teicoplanin does not significantly change the outcome of patients undergoing empirical treatment for MRSA-IE. This finding indicates the patients are similar in clinical outcomes and mortalities despite some adverse effects, such as skin rashes; therefore, teicoplanin can be considered a treatment choice for these diseases.

https://doi.org/10.32592/ircmj.2021.23.1.69

References

  1. Murray CJL, Vos T, Lozano R, Naghavi M, Flaxman AD, Michaud C, et al. Disability-adjusted life years (DALYs) for 291 diseases and injuries in 21 regions, 1990-2010: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2010. Lancet. 2012;380(9859):2197-223. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(12)61689-4. [PubMed: 23245608].
  2. Slipczuk L, Codolosa JN, Davila CD, Romero-Corral A, Yun J, Pressman GS, et al. Infective endocarditis epidemiology over five decades: a systematic review. PloS one. 2013;8(12):e82665. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0082665. [PubMed: 24349331].
  3. Alavi SM, Behdad F. Infective endocarditis among hospitalized intravenous drug user patients in the south west of Iran. Pak J Med Sci. 2010;26(3):659-62.
  4. Hajihossainlou B, Heidarnia MA, Sharif Kashani B. Changing pattern of infective endocarditis in Iran: A 16 years survey. Pak J Med Sci. 2013;29(1):85-90. doi: 10.12669/pjms.291.2682. [PubMed: 24353514].
  5. DeSimone DC, Tleyjeh IM, Correa de Sa DD, Anavekar NS, Lahr BD, Sohail MR, et al. Temporal trends in infective endocarditis epidemiology from 2007 to 2013 in Olmsted County, MN. Am Heart J. 2015;170(4):830-6. doi: 10.1016/j.ahj.2015.07.007. [PubMed: 26386808].
  6. Murdoch DR, Corey GR, Hoen B, Miro JM, Fowler Jr VG, Bayer AS, et al. Clinical presentation, etiology, and outcome of infective endocarditis in the 21st century: the international collaboration on endocarditis-prospective cohort study. Arch Intern Med. 2009;169(5):463-73. doi: 10.1001/archinternmed.2008.603. [PubMed: 19273776].
  7. Selton-Suty C, Celard M, Le Moing V, Doco-Lecompte T, Chirouze C, Iung B, et al. Preeminence of staphylococcus aureus in infective endocarditis: a 1-year population-based survey. clinical infectious diseases : an official publication of the infectious diseases society of america. Clin Infect Dis 2012;54(9):1230-9. doi: 10.1093/cid/cis199. [PubMed: 22492317].
  8. Hoen B, Alla F, Selton-Suty C, Beguinot I, Bouvet A, Briancon S, et al. Changing profile of infective endocarditis: results of a 1-year survey in France. JAMA. 2002;288(1):75-81. doi: 10.1001/jama.288.1.75. [PubMed: 12090865].
  9. Cabell CH, Jollis JG, Peterson GE, Corey GR, Anderson DJ, Sexton DJ, et al. Changing patient characteristics and the effect on mortality in endocarditis. Arch Intern Med. 2002;162(1):90-4. doi: 10.1001/archinte.162.1.90. [PubMed: 11784225].
  10. Sy RW, Kritharides L. Health care exposure and age in infective endocarditis: results of a contemporary population-based profile of 1536 patients in Australia. Eur Heart J. 2010;31(15):1890-7. doi: 10.1093/eurheartj/ehq110. [PubMed: 20453066].
  11. Cresti A, Chiavarelli M, Scalese M, Nencioni C, Valentini S, Guerrini F, et al. Epidemiological and mortality trends in infective endocarditis, a 17-year population-based prospective study. Cardiovasc Diagn Ther. 2017;7(1):27-35. doi: 10.21037/cdt.2016.08.09. [PubMed: 28164010].
  12. Habib G. Infective Endocarditis: Epidemiology, Diagnosis, Imaging, Therapy, and Prevention. 1 ed: Springer International Publishing; 2016.
  13. Fedeli U, Schievano E, Buonfrate D, Pellizzer G, Spolaore P. Increasing incidence and mortality of infective endocarditis: a population-based study through a record-linkage system. BMC Infect Dis. 2011;11(1):48. doi: 10.1186/1471-2334-11-48. [PubMed: 21345185].
  14. Fowler VG, Miro JM, Hoen B, Cabell CH, Abrutyn E, Rubinstein E, et al. Staphylococcus aureus endocarditis: A consequence of medical progress. JAMA. 2005;293(24):3012-21. doi: 10.1001/jama.293.24.3012. [PubMed: 15972563].
  15. Baddour LM, Wilson WR, Bayer AS, Fowler Jr VG, Tleyjeh IM, Rybak MJ, et al. Infective endocarditis in adults: diagnosis, antimicrobial therapy, and management of complications: a scientific statement for healthcare professionals from the american heart association. Circulation. 2015;132(15):1435-86. doi: 10.1161/CIR.0000000000000296. [PubMed: 26373316].
  16. Cavalcanti AB, Goncalves AR, Almeida CS, Bugano DD, Silva E. Teicoplanin versus vancomycin for proven or suspected infection. Cochrane Database Sys Rev. 2010;(6). doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD007022.pub2. [PubMed: 20556772].
  17. Svetitsky S, Leibovici L, Paul M. Comparative efficacy and safety of vancomycin versus teicoplanin: systematic review and meta-analysis. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2009;53(10):4069-79. doi: 10.1128/AAC.00341-09. [PubMed: 19596875].
  18. Huang JH, Hsu RB. Treatment of infective endocarditis caused by methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus: teicoplanin versus vancomycin in a retrospective study. Scand j Infect Dis. 2008;40(6-7):462-7. doi: 10.1080/00365540701837126. [PubMed: 18584532].
  19. Li JS, Sexton DJ, Mick N, Nettles R, Fowler Jr VG., Ryan T, et al. Proposed modifications to the Duke criteria for the diagnosis of infective endocarditis. Clin Infect Dis. 2000;30(4):633-8. doi: 10.1086/313753. Epub 2000 Apr 3. [PubMed: 10770721].
  20. Habib G, Lancellotti P, Antunes MJ, Bongiorni MG, Casalta J-P, Del Zotti F, et al. 2015 ESC Guidelines for the management of infective endocarditisthe task force for the management of infective endocarditis of the european society of cardiology (ESC). Endorsed by: european association for cardio-thoracic surgery (EACTS), the european association of nuclear medicine (EANM). Eur Heart J. 2015;36(44):3075-128. doi: 10.1093/eurheartj/ehv319. [PubMed: 26590409].
  21. Mehta RL, Kellum JA, Shah SV, Molitoris BA, Ronco C, Warnock DG, et al. Acute kidney injury network: report of an initiative to improve outcomes in acute kidney injury. Crit care . 2007;11(2):R31. doi: 10.1186/cc5713. [PubMed: 17331245].
  22. Martí-Carvajal AJ, Dayer M, Conterno LO, Gonzalez Garay AG, Martí-Amarista CE,Simancas-Racines D. A comparison of different antibiotic regimens for thetreatment of infective endocarditis. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2016;4:CD009880. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD009880.pub2. [PubMed: 27092951].