Background: The treatment of severe bloodstream infections (sepsis, endocarditis, and infections of vascular prostheses) caused by Gram-positive microorganisms is made even more difficult by the emergence of resistant strains. The introduction of new antibiotics with activity against these strains has created new opportunities, but many controversial issues remain. Controversial issues: The aim of this GISIG (Gruppo Italiano di Studio sulle Infezioni Gravi) working group - a panel of multidisciplinary experts - was to define recommendations for some controversial issues using an evidence-based and analytical approach. The controversial issues concerned the duration of therapy and role of aminoglycosides and teicoplanin in the treatment of Gram-positive bacterial endocarditis, the optimal use of the new antibiotics in the treatment of bloodstream infections caused by resistant Gram-positive strains, and the use of microbiological techniques (i.e., bactericidal serum testing and synergy testing) and of pharmacokinetic data (e.g., monitoring of plasma levels of antibiotics) in the treatment of difficult-to-treat Gram-positive bloodstream infections. Methods: A systematic literature search of randomized controlled trials and/or non-randomized studies was performed mainly using the MEDLINE database. A matrix was created to extract evidence from original studies using the CONSORT method to evaluate randomized clinical trials and the Newcastle-Ottawa Quality Assessment Scale for non-randomized studies. The GRADE method for grading the quality of evidence and strength of recommendation was applied. © 2010 International Society for Infectious Diseases.

Consensus document on controversial issues in the diagnosis and treatment of bloodstream infections and endocarditis

Menichetti, Francesco;RANIERI, VITO MARCO;Ippolito, Giuseppe
2010-01-01

Abstract

Background: The treatment of severe bloodstream infections (sepsis, endocarditis, and infections of vascular prostheses) caused by Gram-positive microorganisms is made even more difficult by the emergence of resistant strains. The introduction of new antibiotics with activity against these strains has created new opportunities, but many controversial issues remain. Controversial issues: The aim of this GISIG (Gruppo Italiano di Studio sulle Infezioni Gravi) working group - a panel of multidisciplinary experts - was to define recommendations for some controversial issues using an evidence-based and analytical approach. The controversial issues concerned the duration of therapy and role of aminoglycosides and teicoplanin in the treatment of Gram-positive bacterial endocarditis, the optimal use of the new antibiotics in the treatment of bloodstream infections caused by resistant Gram-positive strains, and the use of microbiological techniques (i.e., bactericidal serum testing and synergy testing) and of pharmacokinetic data (e.g., monitoring of plasma levels of antibiotics) in the treatment of difficult-to-treat Gram-positive bloodstream infections. Methods: A systematic literature search of randomized controlled trials and/or non-randomized studies was performed mainly using the MEDLINE database. A matrix was created to extract evidence from original studies using the CONSORT method to evaluate randomized clinical trials and the Newcastle-Ottawa Quality Assessment Scale for non-randomized studies. The GRADE method for grading the quality of evidence and strength of recommendation was applied. © 2010 International Society for Infectious Diseases.
2010
Boumis, Evangelo; Gesu, Giovanni; Menichetti, Francesco; Ranieri, VITO MARCO; Rinaldi, Mauro; Suter, Fredy; Nicastri, Emanuele; Lauria, Francesco N.; Carosi, Giampiero; Moroni, Mauro; Ippolito, Giuseppe
File in questo prodotto:
Non ci sono file associati a questo prodotto.

I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: https://hdl.handle.net/11568/927010
Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? 2
  • Scopus 11
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? ND
social impact