ArticleEuropean journal of clinical microbiology & infectious diseases : official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology2026
Ampicillin/ceftriaxone vs. β-lactam/aminoglycoside combination therapy for Enterococcus faecalis infective endocarditis: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Article in European journal of clinical microbiology & infectious diseases : official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
15 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundEnterococcus faecalis infective endocarditis (EFIE) remains a formidable infection requiring prolonged antimicrobial therapy. Although β-lactam/aminoglycoside (BL + AG) combination therapy has long been regarded as the standard treatment, AG-associated toxicities pose a major clinical dilemma. Recently, dual β-lactam therapy with ampicillin/ceftriaxone (A + C) has become an established treatment option. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of A + C versus BL + AG therapy in patients with EFIE.
methodsA literature search was conducted using PubMed, the Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and ClinicalTrials.gov. Clinical studies comparing A + C versus BL + AG for EFIE were included. Primary outcomes were mortality and relapse rates. Secondary outcomes included overall adverse events, renal adverse events, ototoxicity/vestibular toxicity, skin rash, Clostridioides difficile diarrhea, and regimen changes or discontinuation. Pooled ORs and 95% CIs were estimated utilizing random-effects models.
resultsSix studies involving 619 patients with EFIE were included. Cumulative mortality (OR 1.10, 95% CI: 0.73-1.65) and relapse rates (OR 1.08, 95% CI: 0.39-3.01) did not differ significantly between A + C and BL + AG. However, A + C was associated with significantly lower incidences of total adverse events (OR 0.20, 95% CI: 0.08-0.53), renal adverse events (OR 0.34, 95% CI: 0.19-0.58), ototoxicity/vestibular toxicity (OR 0.07, 95% CI: 0.01-0.37), and antibiotic regimen change (OR 0.20, 95% CI: 0.10-0.39) or discontinuation (OR 0.17, 95% CI: 0.05-0.56).
conclusionA + C therapy was associated with a more favorable safety profile than BL + AG therapy, with no significant differences in efficacy, mortality, or relapse in patients with EFIE. These findings support the use of A + C as an important therapeutic option for patients at increased risk of AG-associated toxicity.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42581256What 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.