ArticleThe Journal of antimicrobial chemotherapy2024
Clinical manifestations and treatment outcomes for patients with Pseudomonas endocarditis.
Article in The Journal of antimicrobial chemotherapy, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Newly recognized typical microorganisms in intracardiac prosthetic material-related infective endocarditis: evidence behind their inclusion in the 2023 Duke-ISCVID criteria.European journal of clinical microbiology & infectious diseases : official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology · 2026Review
- Article
- Evaluation of combination therapy duration for endocarditis secondary to Enterobacterales.Antimicrobial agents and chemotherapy · 2026Article
- Epidemiology, Pathogenesis, Clinical Features, and Management of Non-HACEK Gram-Negative Infective Endocarditis.Antibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Combination Therapy Is Not Associated with Decreased Mortality in Infectious Endocarditis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Microorganisms · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesTo investigate clinical outcomes of patients with Pseudomonas endocarditis and identify factors associated with treatment failure.
methodsAdult patients meeting definitive Duke's criteria for Pseudomonas endocarditis at 11 hospitals were identified between May 2000 and February 2024. Failure was defined as death or microbiological failure by day 42. First-line therapy consisted of cefepime, piperacillin/tazobactam, ceftazidime or ceftolozane/tazobactam alone or in combination.
resultsForty-eight patients met inclusion criteria; 29% were persons who inject drugs and 13% were organ transplant recipients. Pseudomonas aeruginosa was the causative species in 98% of cases. Patients who experienced 42 day cure were more likely to be initially managed with first-line β-lactam agents compared with those who experienced clinical failure (97% versus 62%, P = 0.004). Treatment with first-line β-lactams was associated with shorter time to treatment initiation and a lower likelihood of infection due to MDR Pseudomonas spp. In the univariate model, patients who experienced 90 day mortality were more likely to have prosthetic valve endocarditis (57% versus 24%, P = 0.02), an intracardiac complication (36% versus 9%, P = 0.04) and a higher median (IQR) Pitt bacteraemia score [2.5 (2-3.8) versus 1 (0-2), P = 0.048]. Combination therapy did not improve clinical outcomes but did increase the rate of adverse effects resulting in drug discontinuation compared with monotherapy, (21% versus 0%, P = 0.08).
conclusionsThis is the largest study of Pseudomonas endocarditis to date. We identified improved clinical outcomes when cefepime, piperacillin/tazobactam, ceftazidime or ceftolozane/tazobactam were used for initial treatment. We did not identify a clinical benefit for combination treatment.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.