Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39061715›Full record

ReviewDiagnostics (Basel, Switzerland)2024

Is It Useful to Repeat Blood Cultures in Endocarditis Patients? A Critical Appraisal.

Wouter Kok

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author.

Wouter KokDepartment of Clinical and Experimental Cardiology, Amsterdam Cardiovascular Sciences, Meibergdreef 9, 1105 AZ Amsterdam, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-7789-6285

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPrevious guidelines for endocarditis have suggested repeating blood cultures until they become negative, with limited evidence.

methodsLiterature reviews were conducted (1) on the incidence of persistent bacteremia and association with outcome and (2) on timing of valve culture negativization to examine the claim for prolongation of antibiotic therapy starting from negative blood cultures.

resultsPersistent bacteremia and fever may be present in the first 3 days of endocarditis, despite treatment, and are more common in Staphylococcus (especially MRSA) and Enterococcus species. Persistent bacteremia (48-72 h), persistent infection (day 7), and new onset septic shock are related and predict in-hospital mortality. It is, however, persistent infection at day 7 and septic shock that primarily determine the infectious course of endocarditis, and not persistent bacteremia. Valve cultures at surgery become negative in most cases (>85-90%) after 14-21 days of antibiotic therapy, with no calculated benefit for prolonging therapy after 21 days.

conclusionsPersistent infection at 7 days after appropriate antibiotic therapy is a better key event for prognosis then positive or negative blood cultures at 48-72 h. Therapy prolongation from the day of negative blood cultures is not reasonable. There is no need to survey blood cultures in endocarditis patients after starting therapy.

Indexed as

bacteremiablood culturesendocarditispersistent infection

Identifiers

PMID39061715
PMCPMC11276044

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.