Skip to main content
NCBI home page
Cureus logoLink to Cureus
. 2022 Apr 14;14(4):e24139. doi: 10.7759/cureus.24139

Outcomes of Concurrent Endocarditis and Periprosthetic Joint Infection: A Retrospective Case Series of 16 Patients

Tyler J Humphrey 1,✉, Daniel Marchwiany 1, Mehdi S Salimy 1, Sandra B Nelson 2, Hany S Bedair 1, Christopher M Melnic 1
Editors: Alexander Muacevic, John R Adler
PMCID: PMC9106541  PMID: 35573522

Abstract

Introduction

Concurrent diagnosis of periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) of total hip arthroplasty (THA) or total knee arthroplasty (TKA) with infectious endocarditis is a devastating clinical scenario infrequently documented in the literature. To date, no studies have fully described the orthopedic and infectious outcomes of patients with these concurrent diagnoses. The purpose of this study was to conduct a case series of patients with these diagnoses and document the orthopedic and infectious outcomes so that surgeons may effectively counsel patients regarding the gravity of the condition and the expected course of treatment.

Methods

This study is a retrospective case series using patient data from five hospitals within an academic healthcare system in the northeastern United States. Cases of concurrent endocarditis and THA or TKA PJI with a minimum of one-year follow-up were identified from January 2000 to January 2021. Basic statistics such as means, standard deviations, and percentages were used to identify trends within our series. Kaplan-Meier survivorship curves with log-rank tests were performed to determine if there were any differences in two-year mortality and joint survival (defined as needing explant) between patients who had cardiac surgery prior to surgical management for their PJI and those who had surgical management for PJI prior to cardiac surgery.

Results

A total of 18 joints in 16 patients with endocarditis and concurrent TKA or THA PJI were identified. All PJIs were managed surgically, with 14/18 (77.77%) of joint infections initially being managed by debridement, antibiotics, and implant retention (DAIR) and 4/18 (22.22%) of joint infections initially being managed by explant. Within the first six months of PJI diagnosis, 25% (4/16) of patients died of complications related to their infection, and one additional patient died of bacteremia just over a year after the initial PJI diagnosis. Of the 18 PJIs, 72.23% (13/18) had treatment failure, defined as any outcome equal to or worse than requiring chronic suppressive antibiotics for the infection. Due to low statistical power, we were not able to identify any differences in two-year mortality from PJI diagnosis (p=0.311) or joint survival (in terms of requiring explant) (p=0.420) depending on whether cardiac surgery or DAIR was performed first.

Conclusions

Concurrent infectious endocarditis and prosthetic joint infection is associated with high morbidity and mortality. Patients with these concurrent infections should be counseled that not only the associated mortality rate is high, but also the surgical treatment of their PJI has a high rate of treatment failure, including an explant following an initial DAIR, an explant with retained spacer, or a requirement of lifelong antibiotic suppression.

Keywords: two-stage revision and reconstruction, explant, morbidity, mortality, outcomes, total joint arthroplasty, periprosthetic joint infection, endocarditis

Introduction

Periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) of total hip arthroplasty (THA) or total knee arthroplasty (TKA) is a potentially devastating complication that occurs in approximately 1%-2% of patients undergoing the procedures [1]. The infectious source of PJI is commonly acquired at the time of surgery or as a result of hematogenous seeding from a distant source. Hematogenous infection has been noted to occur in anywhere from 20% to 30% of PJI cases [2,3]. Nevertheless, the exact source of hematogenous infection is not always identified, with some studies suggesting identification rates of around 68% [4]. One of the possible sources of hematogenous PJI, especially in the setting of multiple simultaneous PJI, is seeding from infectious endocarditis [5,6]. Concurrent PJI and infectious endocarditis represent a rare but significant clinical scenario, as the one-year mortality for total joint arthroplasty (TJA) PJI may approach 3%-8% and the six-month mortality for infectious endocarditis may be as high as 27% [7-9]. Furthermore, patients with these concurrent infections may require both surgery to manage their PJI (debridement, antibiotics, and implant retention (DAIR) or explant of the prosthesis) and cardiac surgery for a variety of indications, such as in the setting of acute congestive heart failure (CHF), embolic phenomena, hemodynamic instability, or prosthetic valve endocarditis especially due to Staphylococcus aureus [10,11].

Although prior studies have described that endocarditis may ultimately be found as the source of infection in TJA PJI, most reporting has been in the setting of case reports or as a single variable in retrospective cohort studies with less than 15 cases of endocarditis included [4,5,12]. Furthermore, a thorough characterization of the orthopedic and infectious outcomes of these patients has not been described. Thus, the goal of our study was to characterize the clinical presentation of patients with concurrent PJI and infectious endocarditis and describe the orthopedic and infectious outcomes of these patients in a case series of 16 patients. As patients with these contemporaneous diagnoses are likely to suffer high morbidity and mortality, an understanding of the trends of their clinical courses is needed to sufficiently counsel patients and their families.

Materials and methods

This is an IRB-approved, retrospective case series using data from the electronic medical records of patients from five hospitals within an academic healthcare system in the northeastern United States. Our institutional database was queried to identify all patients over the age of 18 who had a primary or revision TKA or THA in place (using Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) codes 27447, 27487, 27486, 27130, 27137, 27134, and 27138) and who were then subsequently diagnosed with any of the three endocarditis subtypes native valve endocarditis, prosthetic valve endocarditis, or endocarditis due to a cardiac device (e.g., pacemaker, implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD), and cardiac resynchronization therapy device) (International Classification of Diseases (ICD)-9 and ICD-10 codes I33, I38, I39, T82.6, T82.7, 421, 424, and 996.0) and were also diagnosed with PJI of the hip or knee (ICD-9 and ICD-10 codes 996.6, T84.5, T84.6, T84.7, T84.8, and T84.9). For our study period of January 2000 to January 2021, this query resulted in 330 possible patients. All patients were chart reviewed to confirm that the correct temporal sequence of TJA, endocarditis, and PJI (concurrent with the endocarditis episode) was present.

All patients were also confirmed to have a minimum of one-year clinical follow-up. We also chart reviewed patients to confirm that the three subtypes of endocarditis were diagnosed according to the modified Duke criteria [13] and to confirm that the diagnosis of PJI was made according to the most updated version of the Musculoskeletal Infection Society (MSIS) criteria [14,15]. For patient cases to meet our study’s inclusion criteria, we confirmed that the microbiologic organism causing the endocarditis (by blood culture or tissue/device culture) and the PJI (by aspirate or intraoperative tissue culture) were the same organism, which would suggest that the distant infections were truly linked. Patients were excluded from the final cohort in our case series if patients did not meet the inclusion criteria or had insufficient chart information to confirm all of the required diagnoses and temporal constraints. Following the chart review, 18 TJAs in 16 patients were identified.

For each of the patients identified for our final cohort, a variety of demographic, surgical, infectious, and orthopedic variables were obtained. For each patient, data on age, sex, body mass index (BMI), joint (hip or knee), classification of TJA (primary or revision), and all comorbidities listed in the chart, including a history of septic arthritis, diabetes mellitus, hypertension, immunosuppressive medication prescription (systemic chemotherapy, immunosuppressants, or daily steroids), cancer diagnoses, cerebrovascular accident/stroke diagnoses, congestive heart failure, major depressive disorder, rheumatoid arthritis, smoking history, and alcohol use history, were obtained. For each patient, we also obtained data related to the hospital presentation of their concurrent PJI and endocarditis admission; thus, we documented the following: the number of joints infected, erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR) at presentation, C-reactive protein (CRP) at presentation, whether symptoms were acute (<4 weeks), if there were documented recent invasive procedures (such as dental procedures), PJI temporal classification related to the most recent TJA (early (<3 months), delayed (3-24 months), or late (>24 months)) [16], whether there was new-onset joint pain after an uneventful recovery from the index TJA, if patients were septic on initial presentation, if there were any signs of local inflammation (warmth, erythema, and edema) at the affected joint, fever of >38°C, and a description of the intraoperative findings by the orthopedic surgeon managing the PJI.

Regarding infectious and orthopedic outcomes, we documented the occurrence and dates of the diagnosis of endocarditis, diagnosis of PJI, and surgery for the management of PJI, including the following: DAIR, prosthesis explant with antibiotic spacer, full two-stage revision with reimplantation of prosthesis, resection arthroplasty (Girdlestone arthroplasty), cardiac surgery, and repeat cardiac surgery (if applicable). We documented the infectious organism of the endocarditis/PJI and whether the organism was a multidrug-resistant organism (MDRO), which we defined as organisms with resistance to three or more antibiotic classes during susceptibility testing or the presence of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) [17]. We also noted the antibiotics prescribed after the hospitalization for the infections in terms of antibiotic type, duration, and route of administration and whether antibiotics were prescribed for the suppression of infection for >6 months duration. We lastly documented the ultimate outcome of the infections for each patient, as well as the dates of death during the study period. Treatment failure for PJI management was defined as a tier 2 to tier 4 outcome using outcome tiers described by Fillingham et al. [18]. The outcome tiers we utilized for our study can be viewed in Table 1.

Table 1. Classification Tiers of Treatment Outcomes for TJA PJI.

The classification tiers are according to Fillingham et al. [18].

TJA: total joint arthroplasty; PJI: periprosthetic joint infection

PJI outcome tiers
Tier 1: Infection control with no continued antibiotic therapy
Tier 2: Infection control with the patient on suppressive antibiotic therapy
Tier 3: Need for reoperation and/or revision and/or spacer retention (assigned to subgroups A, B, C, D, E, and F based on the type of reoperation)
     A: Aseptic revision at >1 year from the initiation of PJI treatment
     B: Septic revision (including debridement, antibiotics, and implant retention (DAIR)) at >1 year from the initiation of PJI treatment (excluding amputation, resection arthroplasty, and arthrodesis)
     C: Aseptic revision at ≤1 year from the initiation of PJI treatment
     D: Septic revision (including DAIR) at ≤1 year from the initiation of PJI treatment (excluding amputation, resection arthroplasty, and arthrodesis)
     E: Amputation, resection arthroplasty, or arthrodesis
     F: Retained spacer
Tier 4: Death (assigned to subgroups A or B)
     A: Death ≤1 year from the initiation of PJI treatment
     B: Death >1 year from the initiation of PJI treatment
Open in a new tab

Statistical analysis

Simple descriptive statistics, such as means, averages, standard deviations, and percentages, were calculated for variables that we obtained in order to identify trends within our cohort. In addition, Kaplan-Meier survivorship curves with log-rank tests were performed to determine if there were any differences in two-year mortality and joint survival (defined as needing explant) between patients who had cardiac surgery prior to surgical management for their PJI and patients who had surgical management for their PJI prior to cardiac surgery. Only patients who had cardiac surgery were included in this Kaplan-Meier survivorship curve analysis (n=13). The p-value for significance was set as p<0.05 for our study. Statistical analyses were performed using the SPSS software for Windows version 26 (IBM Corporation, Armonk, NY, USA).

Results

Patient demographics

With our inclusion and exclusion criteria, we identified 16 patients with a history of primary or revision THA or TKA who developed concurrent native valve, prosthetic valve, or cardiac device endocarditis and PJI. Table 2 displays the general demographics of our case series. The average age of patients in our cohort at the time of PJI diagnosis was 69.30±9.36 years, with 10 male and six female patients represented. The average BMI in our cohort was 31.65±7.05 kg/m2, 56.25% of patients were smokers, 37.5% of patients were diabetic, 62.5% had peripheral artery disease, and 6.25% of patients had a history of septic arthritis. Interestingly, no patients were found to have ever abused injection drugs. Lastly, the average follow-up duration was 43.36 (range: 0.36-143.2) months in our cohort, which was inclusive of patients who died prior to the minimum 12-month follow-up for our study.

Table 2. Patient Demographics.

PJI: periprosthetic joint infection; n/a: not applicable; PAD: peripheral artery disease; IDU: injection drug abuse; CHF: congestive heart failure

Patient number History of PJI or septic arthritis prior to new PJI Comorbidities (all) Diabetes mellitus Hypertension Immunosuppressive medications Notable medications Cancer Cerebrovascular accident/stroke PAD Smoker IDU CHF Major depressive disorder Alcohol use Rheumatoid arthritis
1 No Atrioventricular block with pacemaker placement, rheumatoid arthritis, tracheomalacia with tracheostomy No Yes Yes Methotrexate, leucovorin No No Yes Yes No No No No Yes
2 No Multilevel lumbar fusion, chronic low back pain, diabetes mellitus, hypertension, hyperlipidemia, coronary artery disease Yes Yes No n/a No No Yes No No No No No No
3 No Congestive heart failure, coronary artery disease, hypertension, atrial flutter with permanent pacemaker placement, diabetes mellitus Yes Yes No n/a No No Yes Yes No Yes No No No
4 No Chronic lymphocytic leukemia, hypertension, peripheral artery disease, congestive heart failure, coronary artery disease, atrial fibrillation, deep venous thrombosis, diabetes mellitus, hyperlipidemia, gastroesophageal reflux disease Yes Yes No n/a Yes Yes Yes No No Yes No No No
5 No Diabetes mellitus, obstructive sleep apnea, atrial fibrillation, hypertension, hyperlipidemia, coronary artery disease, aortic stenosis, ascending aortic aneurysm status post-aortic valve replacement and aortic plication Yes Yes No Apixaban, amiodarone No No Yes Yes No Yes No Yes No
6 No Human immunodeficiency virus with low CD4 count, end-stage renal disease, hemophilia, factor IX deficiency, hepatitis C, cirrhosis, diabetes mellitus, spontaneous bacterial peritonitis No No No Acyclovir, ciprofloxacin, supplemental factor IX No No No No No No No No No
7 No Cardiomyopathy with implantable cardioverter-defibrillator, diabetes mellitus Yes Yes No Atorvastatin, carvedilol, divalproex, empagliflozin, insulin, metformin, sacubitril-valsartan No Yes No Yes No Yes Yes Yes No
8 No Chronic kidney disease, hypertension, hyperlipidemia, coronary artery disease, sick sinus syndrome, atrial fibrillation with pacemaker, ulcerative colitis No Yes No Balsalazide No No Yes Yes No No No No No
9 Yes, of same prosthetic joint but a different organism Breast cancer status post-radiation therapy, mitral valve disease status post- bioprosthetic mitral valve, atrial fibrillation No No No Exemestane Yes Yes No No No No No No No
10 No Prostate cancer, anemia, atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease, glaucoma, neuropathy No Yes No Atorvastatin, ezetimibe, furosemide, gabapentin, omeprazole Yes No Yes Yes No No No Yes No
No Prostate cancer, anemia, atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease, glaucoma, neuropathy No Yes No Atorvastatin, ezetimibe, furosemide, gabapentin, omeprazole Yes No Yes Yes No No No Yes No
11 No Coronary artery disease, atrial fibrillation, complete heart block status post-permanent pacemaker placement, mitral valve repair with porcine valve for severe mitral regurgitation, congestive heart failure, history of diverticular bleed, breast cancer status post-mastectomy No No No Amiodarone No No Yes No No Yes No No No
12 No Aortic stenosis status post-bioprosthetic valve replacement, atrial flutter, lumbar discectomy, major depressive disorder, obesity, obstructive sleep apnea, stroke, hypertension No Yes No n/a No Yes No Yes No No Yes No No
No Aortic stenosis status post-bioprosthetic valve replacement, atrial flutter, lumbar discectomy, major depressive disorder, obesity, obstructive sleep apnea, stroke, hypertension No Yes No n/a No Yes No Yes No No Yes No No
13 No Coronary artery disease, history of bioprosthetic aortic valve replacement, carotid endarterectomy, congestive heart failure, diabetes mellitus Yes Yes No Insulin No Yes Yes Yes No No Yes No No
14 No Mitral valve prolapse No No No n/a No No No No No No No No No
15 No Dilated nonischemic cardiomyopathy, atrial fibrillation status post-implantable cardioverter-defibrillator placement, alcohol abuse, hypertension, total hip replacement with chronic PJI on suppressive antibiotics No Yes No Minocycline for chronic suppressive antibiotics, rivaroxaban, amiodarone, omeprazole, quetiapine Yes No No Yes No Yes Yes Yes No
16 No Hypertension, hyperlipidemia, coronary artery disease, endocarditis, chronic kidney disease, gout, aortic valve replacement No Yes No Allopurinol, diltiazem, ezetimibe No No Yes No No No No No No
Open in a new tab

Characteristics of patient presentations

Table 3 depicts the characteristics of patient presentations in our cohort. In our cohort, there were 14 (87.5%) patients with PJI affecting a single joint and two (12.5%) patients presenting with multiple concurrent PJI. Of the PJIs, there were 12 knees and six hips. One patient was diagnosed with a knee PJI and concurrent native shoulder septic arthritis, although we excluded the native shoulder septic arthritis from our outcomes analysis. This resulted in a total of 18 total hip and total knee arthroplasties that were infected in 16 patients. In terms of inflammatory markers, the average ESR at PJI diagnosis was 64.00±36.35 mm/hour (reference: 0-13 mm/hour), and the average CRP at PJI diagnosis was 124.31±72.81 mg/L (reference: <8 mg/L).

Table 3. Characteristics of Patient Presentations.

*Negative value means PJI was diagnosed prior to endocarditis.

PJI: periprosthetic joint infection; BMI: body mass index (kg/m2); ESR: erythrocyte sedimentation rate (reference: 0-13 mm/hour); CRP: C-reactive protein (reference: <8 mg/L)

Patient number Age at PJI diagnosis Sex BMI Type of prosthetic joint infected  ESR at PJI diagnosis (mm/hour) CRP at PJI diagnosis (mg/L) Acute symptoms (<4 weeks) Documented dental procedure or other invasive procedure prior to endocarditis PJI temporal classification: early (<3 months), delayed (3-24 months), or late (>24 months) New-onset joint pain after an uneventful recovery Sepsis on initial endocarditis presentation  Local signs of knee or hip inflammation (erythema and warmth) Fever above 38°C Intraoperative findings of PJI management surgery Days from infected cardiac/vascular device to PJI*
1 76.39 Female 25 Prosthetic knee 23 52.50 Yes Pacemaker exchange two weeks prior Late Yes Yes Yes Yes No abnormal findings 15
2 75.09 Female 43 Prosthetic knee Unknown Unknown Yes No Late Yes Yes Yes Yes Purulence -5
3 70.52 Male 35 Prosthetic hip 110 24 No No Late Yes No Yes Yes Purulence, loosening 324
4 82.87 Male 28 Prosthetic hip 73 223 Yes No Late Yes Yes Yes Yes Purulence 6
5 69.87 Male 41 Prosthetic knee 53 189.60 Yes No Late Yes No Yes Yes Straw-colored fluid -5
6 54.45 Male 30 Prosthetic knee Unknown Unknown Yes No Late Yes Yes Yes Yes Large coagulative hematoma 55
7 57.93 Male 32 Prosthetic knee 28 99 Yes Foot ulcer debridement three months prior Late Yes Yes Yes Yes Gross purulence 6
8 79.99 Male 25 Prosthetic knee 5 76.40 Yes No Late Yes No Yes Yes Copious purulent joint fluid -3
9 59.09 Female 28 Prosthetic knee Unknown Unknown No No Delayed No Yes Yes Yes No abnormal findings -143
10 78.89 Male 25.50 Prosthetic knee 104 147 No No Delayed No Yes Yes Yes Yellowish fluid -224
78.89 Male 25.50 Prosthetic knee 104.00 147.00 No No Delayed No Yes Yes Yes Yellowish fluid -224
11 83.02 Female 30 Prosthetic hip 78 87 No No Late Yes No Yes Yes Purulence -25
12 64.29 Female 50 Bilateral prosthetic knees Unknown  Unknown Yes No Late Yes Yes Yes Yes Purulence -4
64.29 Female 50.00 Bilateral prosthetic knees Unknown Unknown Yes No Late Yes Yes Yes Yes None -4
13 63.64 Male 33 Prosthetic hip 52 257 Yes Toe amputation for osteomyelitis Late Yes Yes Yes Yes Purulence 3
14 72.72 Female 25 Prosthetic knee Unknown Unknown Yes No Late Yes No Yes Yes None 0
15 55.26 Male 28 Prosthetic Hip 114 87.60 No No Late No Yes Yes Yes Purulence, sinus tract -956
16 64.81 Male 28 Prosthetic hip Unknown Unknown No No Late Yes No Yes No Purulence, fluid collection 1092
Open in a new tab

In addition, 62.5% of patients had symptoms of PJI and endocarditis for less than four weeks prior to presentation to the hospital. We also found that 81.25% of patients experienced new-onset joint pain after an uneventful recovery from their index TJA and that 62.5% of patients were septic on presentation. In terms of temporal PJI classification, 87.5% of patients had a PJI temporally defined as “late,” but only 18.75% of patients had a documented invasive procedure as a possible impetus for a hematogenous infection. In addition, we found that all patients in our cohort had signs of local inflammation at the affected joint upon presentation, and 93.75% of patients had a fever documented at presentation greater than 38°C. All patients had surgical management of their PJI, with 9/18 (50%) of joints demonstrating intraoperative purulence.

Regarding the timing of diagnoses, eight (50%) patients had their hip or knee PJI diagnosed prior to endocarditis, while the remaining 50% of patients were diagnosed with endocarditis prior to PJI. In the two patients with multiple simultaneous PJI diagnoses, the diagnoses of PJI were made on the same day of hospital admission.

Infectious and mortality outcomes

In our cohort of 16 patients, we identified seven cardiac device infections, eight native cardiac valve infections, and seven prosthetic/bioprosthetic valve infections, with some patients having multiple classifications of endocarditis simultaneously. In terms of microbiology, 10/18 (55.55%) of joints had methicillin-sensitive Staphylococcus aureus (MSSA) infection, and 3/18 (16.67%) of joints had infections due to MDROs, all of which were due to methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA). In addition, we found that 11/18 (61.11%) of joints in our cohort required oral antibiotic suppression therapy >6 months for indications that were determined through shared decision-making between the patient, infectious disease service, and orthopedic service. The rationale for prescribing suppressive antibiotics is documented in Table 4.

Table 4. Infectious Variables and Outcomes of Patients With Concurrent Endocarditis and PJI.

*Negative value means PJI was diagnosed prior to endocarditis.

**Negative value means cardiac surgery was performed prior to PJI diagnosis.

PJI: periprosthetic joint infection; DAIR: debridement, antibiotics, and implant retention; GBS: group B Streptococcus; MSSA: methicillin-sensitive Staphylococcus aureus; MRSA: methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus; PICC: peripherally inserted central venous catheter; ICD: implantable cardioverter-defibrillator; PFO: patent foramen ovale; CRT-D: cardiac resynchronization therapy device

Patient number Description of endocarditis Days from endocarditis to PJI* Infectious organism Infectious organism MDR Antibiotics used, duration, and route Chronic oral antibiotic suppression after initial antibiotic treatment Rationale for chronic oral antibiotic suppression, if used Cardiac surgery Cardiac surgery details, if applicable Time from PJI diagnosis to cardiac surgery (days)** Repeat cardiac surgery Cardiac Surgery prior to PJI surgery
1 Pacemaker lead infection 15 Pseudomonas No Cefepime and levofloxacin for two weeks, through central line No n/a Yes Removal of left pectoral pacemaker with lead extraction, placement of a temporary pacing wire via the right internal jugular vein 2 No No
2 Native valve endocarditis -5 GBS No Penicillin for one week, though PICC line No n/a No Patient was not a surgical candidate for endocarditis given a risk of intracranial hemorrhage with anticoagulation n/a n/a n/a
3 Pacemaker lead endocarditis, native aortic valve, native pulmonic valve endocarditis 324 MSSA No Oxacillin for six weeks, through PICC line Yes Six-month course of oral trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole prior to reimplantation of hip prosthesis Yes Removal of infected pacemaker  -317 No Yes
4 Pacemaker lead endocarditis, mobile descending aortic plaque infection 6 MSSA No Cefazolin for six weeks, though PICC line Yes Patient declined surgical management of PJI and was placed on indefinite oral cefadroxil Yes Pacemaker removal, reimplantation of new pacemaker at a later date -6 No Yes
5 Bioprosthetic aortic valve endocarditis -5 Staphylococcus epidermidis No Six-week course of vancomycin and rifampin with two weeks of gentamicin, though PICC line Yes Patient only underwent DAIR and declined further surgical management; thus, chronic suppression was provided as an option with oral doxycycline daily Yes Redo sternotomy, redo aortic valve replacement, tricuspid valve repair 96 Yes, due to worsening heart failure No
6 Mitral valve endocarditis 55 MSSA No Vancomycin for six weeks, ciprofloxacin for one week, gentamicin for one week, all through PICC line Yes Continued ciprofloxacin suppression for spontaneous bacterial peritonitis prophylaxis, continued intravenous vancomycin for months for arteriovenous fistula-related infection as well No Patient was not a candidate for cardiac surgery n/a n/a n/a
7 ICD endocarditis, tricuspid valves endocarditis, PFO endocarditis 6 MSSA no IV oxacillin through PICC and oral rifampin for six weeks Yes Patient was placed on one year of suppressive oral cefuroxime after undergoing DAIR, as patient continued to have echocardiographic evidence of endocarditis; patient then underwent explant of his knee prosthesis but died prior to reimplantation Yes Extraction of ICD leads 6 No Yes
8 ICD/pacemaker lead endocarditis -3 MSSA No Cefazolin and rifampin for six weeks, though PICC line Yes Patient underwent DAIR but was not a candidate for two-stage revision; patient also continued to have chronic pectoral hematoma infection and thus was placed on oral minocycline and rifampin indefinitely Yes Removal of pacemaker and placement of semipermanent lead 3 No No
9 Bioprosthetic mitral valve endocarditis -143 MSSA No Nafcillin and rifampin for six weeks, through PICC No n/a Yes Midline sternotomy for redo mitral valve excision, debridement and replacement of mitral valve with a porcine bioprosthesis 176 No No
10 CRT-D lead endocarditis, tricuspid and bioprosthetic aortic valve endocarditis -224 MSSA No Nafcillin for six weeks, through PICC Yes Patient underwent DAIR of both knees but was not a candidate for two-stage revision; given this and a history of endocarditis, patient remained on oral doxycycline indefinitely Yes Revision sternotomy, aortic root replacement, tricuspid valve leaflet repair, ventricular septal defect closure, CRT-D explant 240 No No
CRT-D lead endocarditis, tricuspid and bioprosthetic aortic valve endocarditis -224 MSSA No Nafcillin for six weeks, through PICC Yes Patient underwent DAIR of both knees but was not a candidate for two-stage revision; given this and a history of endocarditis, patient remained on oral doxycycline indefinitely Yes Revision sternotomy, aortic root replacement, tricuspid valve leaflet repair, ventricular septal defect closure, CRT-D explant 240 No No
11 Bioprosthetic mitral valve endocarditis -25 Staphylococcus mutans No Penicillin for six weeks, through PICC No n/a No Patient was not a candidate for cardiac surgery n/a n/a n/a
12 Bioprosthetic aortic valve endocarditis -4 MRSA Yes Vancomycin for six weeks, though PICC Yes Although the patient underwent two-stage revision with mega-endoprosthesis, she was placed on lifetime oral doxycycline given her MRSA endocarditis and comorbidities Yes Aortic root replacement, redo sternotomy  76 No No
Bioprosthetic aortic valve endocarditis -4 MRSA Yes Vancomycin for six weeks, though PICC Yes Patient was placed on lifetime oral doxycycline given her MRSA endocarditis and comorbidities Yes Aortic root replacement, redo sternotomy 76 No No
13 Native mitral and prosthetic aortic valve endocarditis and aortic root abscess 3 MSSA No Nafcillin, ceftriaxone, and rifampin for six weeks, through PICC No n/a Yes Reoperative aortic valve replacement, removal of vegetations from the mitral valve -3 No Yes
14 Native mitral valve endocarditis 0 MSSA No Nafcillin for six weeks, through PICC No n/a Yes Mitral valve repair 171 No No
15 Tricuspid valve endocarditis and ICD endocarditis -956 MRSA Yes Daptomycin and cefepime for six weeks, through PICC Yes Patient underwent DAIR and Girdlestone arthroplasty (due to proximal femoral fracture) and has remained on chronic oral minocycline due to endocarditis history, comorbidities, and continued hip drainage Yes  ICD extraction 960 No Yes
16 Bioprosthetic aortic valve endocarditis with a peri-annular abscess 1092 Enterococcus faecalis No Six-week course of intravenous ampicillin and gentamycin and oral linezolid No n/a Yes Aortic valve replacement, debridement and patching of periannular abscess -1089 No Yes
Open in a new tab

We also found that 13/16 (81.25%) of patients required cardiac surgery, but only one patient required repeat cardiac surgery in our study period, which was indicated for worsening heart failure in the setting of prosthetic valve dysfunction. The three patients who did not have cardiac surgery during the study period were determined to not meet the criteria for surgery according to mutual decisions made by the cardiothoracic surgery and infectious disease departments and were only treated with intravenous antibiotics. Lastly, 6/16 (37.5%) of patients died within two years of the endocarditis diagnosis, while 9/16 (56.25%) of patients died during the study period.

Orthopedic outcomes

In our cohort, we analyzed the outcomes of the 18 hip and knee PJIs that were diagnosed, as shown in Table 5. All PJIs were managed surgically, with 14/18 (77.77%) of joint infections initially being managed by DAIR and 4/18 (22.22%) of joint infections initially being managed by explant. Of the 14 joint infections managed with DAIR, 4/14 (28.57%) of joints subsequently required an explant, and 2/4 of these joints went on to reimplantation. Of the joints initially managed with explant, 3/4 (75%) went on to reimplantation. The three joints in our cohort that underwent explant of their prosthesis but did not complete the full two-stage revision were deemed either medically unfit for the reimplantation procedure or the patients did not have the desire to undergo further surgery. Only 5/18 (27.77%) of joints had a successful PJI treatment, while the remaining patients had varying tiers of failure. Notably, 7/18 (38.89%) of joints had treatment failure classified at or above tier 3E, which is representative of severe morbidity and mortality. The ultimate orthopedic outcome for each patient is documented in Table 5 and Figure 1.

Table 5. Orthopedic Outcomes of the 18 Joints Infected in Our Series.

**Negative value denotes that a PJI was diagnosed prior to endocarditis.

Treatment failure is as defined by tier 2-4 outcome by Fillingham et al. [18].

DAIR: debridement, antibiotics, and implant retention; PJI: periprosthetic joint infection; PICC: peripherally inserted central venous catheter

Patient number Type of prosthetic joint infected Days from infected cardiac/vascular device to PJI** Time from PJI diagnosis to first surgical management of PJI (days) DAIR Explant Full two-stage revision, including reimplant Ultimate outcome of infection Treatment failure Death within two years of endocarditis diagnosis Category of last follow-up Follow-up duration (months)
1 Prosthetic knee 15 0 Yes No No Patient died during the hospitalization due to bacteremia Yes, tier 4 Yes Date of death 0.36
2 Prosthetic knee -5 0 Yes No No Patient died during hospitalization Yes, tier 4 Yes Date of death 0.76
3 Prosthetic hip 324 3 No Yes Yes Patient successfully underwent two-stage revision of hip prosthesis No Yes Date of death 4.10
4 Prosthetic hip 6 2 Yes No No Patient declined further surgical intervention and remained on suppressive antibiotics until the date of death Yes, tier 2 Yes Date of death 4.80
5 Prosthetic knee -5 0 Yes No No Patient remained on suppressive antibiotics with PO doxycycline daily Yes, tier 2 n/a Clinical follow-up 12
6 Prosthetic knee 55 2 Yes No No Patient died from bacteremia one year later while on multiple antibiotics for suppression therapy Yes, tier 4 Yes Date of death 13.66
7 Prosthetic knee 6 8 Yes Yes No Patient died with antibiotic spacer in place in the right knee Yes, tier 3F Yes Date of death 24
8 Prosthetic knee -3 1 Yes No No Patient remained on chronic suppressive antibiotics after DAIR Yes, tier 2 No Clinical follow-up 25.76
9 Prosthetic knee -143 141 Yes Yes Yes Patient underwent a Girdlestone arthroplasty followed by reimplantation of a knee prosthesis No No Clinical follow-up 26.96
10 Prosthetic knee -224 2 Yes No No Patient remained on suppressive antibiotics for life Yes, tier 2 No Clinical follow-up 31.4
Prosthetic knee -224 2 Yes No No Patient remained on suppressive antibiotics for life Yes, tier 2 No Clinical follow-up 31.4
11 Prosthetic hip -25 1 No Yes Yes Patient underwent a full two-stage revision No No Clinical follow-up 46.56
12 Prosthetic knee -4 2 Yes Yes Yes Patient eventually had a radical resection left distal femur with removal of existing cement spacer followed by a distal femoral mega-endoprosthetic rotating hinge knee arthroplasty Yes, tier 3E No Clinical follow-up 54.86
Prosthetic knee -4 2 Yes No No Patient’s infection resolved after DAIR, patient remained on chronic suppressive antibiotics Yes, tier 2 No Clinical follow-up 54.86
13 Prosthetic hip 3 1 No Yes No Patient underwent explant of hip components and spacer placement but did not have reimplantation Yes, tier 3F No Date of death 64.43
14 Prosthetic knee 0 0 Yes No No Patient’s infection resolved with six weeks of nafcillin via PICC line No No Date of death 108.23
15 Prosthetic hip -956 2 Yes Yes No Patient underwent Girdlestone arthroplasty Yes, tier 3E No Clinical follow-up 132.80
16 Prosthetic hip 1092 0 No Yes Yes Patient underwent a full two-stage revision No No Date of death 143.20
Open in a new tab

Figure 1. Treatment Outcomes for the 18 PJIs in Our Series.

Figure 1

Open in a new tab

Treatment outcome tiers were defined by Fillingham et al. [18].

Of note, one of the patients in this group, denoted by the “*” only had 12 months of clinical follow-up; all other patients had at least two years of clinical follow-up.

PJI: periprosthetic joint infection; DAIR: debridement, antibiotics, and implant retention

Survivorship analyses

We sought to determine if there was a significant difference in mortality within two years of PJI diagnosis and joint survivorship (defined as requiring explant of the prosthesis) between patients who had cardiac surgery performed prior to surgery for PJI management and patients who had surgery for PJI management prior to cardiac surgery. In both of these survivorship analyses, we were able to include a maximum of 13 patients, as three patients did not undergo cardiac surgery and were instead treated with intravenous antibiotics. In our analysis of mortality within two years of PJI, the two patients with synchronous PJIs were counted as one patient. We chose to do this because these two patients had the DAIRs for their synchronous PJIs performed on the same day. In our analysis of joint survivorship (requiring explant), we excluded patients who had explant as the original surgical management for their PJI (thus only including patients with DAIR as the original management).

We found that mortality within two years appeared to be higher in patients who had surgery for PJI management prior to cardiac surgery, although the difference was not significant (log-rank p=0.311), as we were underpowered to detect a difference (Figure 2). We also found that joint survivorship appeared to be higher in patients who had PJI management surgery prior to cardiac surgery, but the results were not significant (log-rank p=0.420), again due to underpowering (Figure 3).

Figure 2. Kaplan-Meier Curve Depicting Mortality Within Two Years of PJI.

Figure 2

Open in a new tab

Two-year mortality is a function of whether cardiac surgery is performed prior to PJI surgery or vice versa.

The large red vertical line depicts two years (104 weeks).

0: cardiac surgery was not before PJI surgery, 1: cardiac surgery was before PJI surgery

PJI: periprosthetic joint infection

Figure 3. Kaplan-Meier Curve Depicting Joint Survival: Requiring Explant.

Figure 3

Open in a new tab

Requiring explant is a function of whether cardiac surgery is performed prior to PJI debridement, antibiotics, and implant retention (DAIR) or vice versa.

0: cardiac surgery was not before PJI surgery, 1: cardiac surgery was before PJI surgery

PJI: periprosthetic joint infection

Discussion

This study highlights the high morbidity and mortality in patients with concurrent PJI and infectious endocarditis. These concurrent diagnoses, while rare, do occur and should be ruled out in patients with bacteremia and symptoms of a PJI. Rakow et al. studied 106 hematogenous PJIs in a two-year period and found that, while the primary source of infection was identified in only 68% of cases, of the cases with an identifiable source, 19.44% of cases were due to infectious endocarditis [4]. This study shed light on the potential incidence of concurrent PJI and endocarditis cases but did not discuss any of the orthopedic outcomes of these patients. Furthermore, in a study by Tande et al. of 166 patients with at least one arthroplasty in place who were diagnosed with Staphylococcus bacteremia, 36.1% of patients developed at least one PJI, and of these PJI patients, three developed endocarditis [5]. In that study, only one of the three patients had recurrent PJI, but the overall outcome was not discussed. Therefore, a detailed review of our cohort’s infectious courses, treatment, and outcomes provides some insight into the seriousness of these concurrent diagnoses.

In our cohort, 87.5% of patients were diagnosed with a PJI classified as “late” (>24 months from index), which is consistent with the previous reporting of the incidence of patients who develop hematogenous PJI associated with another identified distant infection [12]. Within the first six months of PJI diagnosis, 25% (4/16) died of complications related to their infection, and one additional patient died of bacteremia just over a year after the initial PJI diagnosis. This patient who died 13 months after the PJI diagnosis was a male with untreated HIV and was on suppressive antibiotics. Of note, two out of the three patients who did not have cardiac surgery died from overwhelming infection, which is not surprising, as the primary focus of the infection (endocarditis) was not able to be fully addressed surgically. Overall, the mortality rate we found in our study is markedly higher than the reported one-year mortality rate after PJI alone of 3%-8% [7,9].

All 16 patients in our cohort underwent surgical intervention for the 18 PJIs. For the treatment of acute PJI with DAIR, the literature reports success rates of 83%-90% [19-21]. However, in our cohort, 2/14 (14.28%) patients undergoing DAIR had treatment success, and only 5/18 (27.77%) of all of the joints had successful PJI management. We found that, in total, 8/18 joints required explant at any point in time, and of these eight joints, three never went on to reimplant, at a rate of 37.5%. This rate of failure to undergo reimplant is higher than the reported attrition rates after the first stage of a two-stage revision, which are normally around 18% [22]. Determining the optimal surgical treatment should continue to be case-specific depending on factors including the chronicity of infection, presence of systemic infection, patients’ medical comorbidities, and surgeon’s preference. Nevertheless, patients should be counseled on the increased risks of treatment failure with either DAIR or two-stage revision, as 72.22% of all of the joints in our cohort had a failed treatment for PJI.

Regarding survivorship of patients as a function of whether cardiac surgery or PJI management surgery (DAIR of explant) was performed first, we were unable to identify significant differences. While this is due to insufficient power, it is interesting to note that in the three joints that had a cardiac surgery prior to DAIR, two required explant, and all had treatment failure. Previous research has shown that a shorter interval time between infectious symptoms and DAIR of the affected prosthetic joint is associated with improved joint survivorship (due to decreased biofilm formation) [23,24]. While performing cardiac surgery for endocarditis might delay DAIR for PJI, thus increasing the risk for treatment failure, addressing immediate life-threatening conditions such as hemodynamic instability and acute heart failure likely takes precedent to debriding the joint. Given that treatment failure was also high in patients who had PJI surgery prior to cardiac surgery, we suspect that the high treatment failure in our cohort is representative of the overall gravity of these patients’ medical conditions, regardless of whether one surgery took precedent during the hospitalization.

Despite only including cases in which the same organism was identified in both cardiac infection and PJI, for most patients in the cohort, we could not identify an underlying impetus for their infection. Two patients were noted to have had recent foot-related procedures that may have caused a hematogenous infection, and one had a recent pacemaker exchange that became infected. Notably, no patients had any documented recent dental procedures, for which antibiotic prophylaxis is recommended by many orthopedic and cardiac surgeons for both infectious endocarditis and prosthetic joint infection prevention in the setting of preexisting prosthetic implants [25,26]. Additionally, no patients had a documented history of injection drug use despite the high association with infectious endocarditis [27].

The most commonly identified organism in our cohort was Staphylococcus aureus, with MRSA in 16.67% of cases and MSSA in 55.55% of cases, for a total of 72.22% of organisms identified. This is consistent with previous literature describing that Staphylococcus aureus has some of the highest rates of seeding a periprosthetic joint in the setting of bacteremia compared to other organisms, at 18%-21% likelihood of seeding [28,29]. Nevertheless, in the literature, MSSA PJI has high rates of two-year infection-free survival, reported at 93% in one study [30]. In our cohort, 33% (3/9) of patients with MSSA infection died related to the infection, highlighting the high mortality risk with these concurrent infections of PJI and endocarditis.

Limitations

Although the sample size of this study represents the largest known cohort of this rare concurrent pathology, the limitations of this study include the retrospective design and the small size of our cohort. A larger cohort could potentially allow us to compare and make conclusions regarding outcomes between the initial explant versus DAIR. We lacked sufficient cohort size to identify a statistically significant difference in survivorship between those who had their PJI surgical treatment before versus after the intervention of their cardiac infection. As a chart review-based study, we were limited to only information documented in their medical record; therefore, questions that may have suggested a possible source of infection such as dental procedure or injection drug use may not have been asked or documented.

Currently, there is no consensus diagnostic process for determining whether endocarditis or PJI was the initial infection in the setting of very short intervals between the diagnoses, which limits the interpretability of our study to the outcomes of patients who have “concurrent infections.” Furthermore, while we included only patients who had a shared identified organism from both the cardiac infection and PJI to identify a relationship between the infections, we may have created a selection bias against difficult-to-culture organisms, which may explain the predominance of MSSA infections that were identified.

Conclusions

Concurrent infectious endocarditis and prosthetic joint infection is associated with high morbidity and mortality. Of the 18 PJIs, 72.23% resulted in treatment failure, defined as any outcome equal to or worse than requiring chronic suppressive antibiotics. Of the joints that underwent explant, three never went on to reimplant, at a rate of 37.5%. Patients with these two concurrent infections should be counseled that not only the associated mortality rate is high, but also the surgical treatment of their PJI has a high rate of treatment failure, including an explant following an initial DAIR, an explant with retained spacer, or a requirement of lifelong antibiotic suppression.

The content published in Cureus is the result of clinical experience and/or research by independent individuals or organizations. Cureus is not responsible for the scientific accuracy or reliability of data or conclusions published herein. All content published within Cureus is intended only for educational, research and reference purposes. Additionally, articles published within Cureus should not be deemed a suitable substitute for the advice of a qualified health care professional. Do not disregard or avoid professional medical advice due to content published within Cureus.

The authors have declared financial relationships, which are detailed in the next section.

Hany S. Bedair and Christopher M. Melnic declare(s) personal fees, royalties and stock/stock options from Smith and Nephew (London, UK), Exactech (Gainesville, FL, USA), Zimmer Biomet (Warsaw, IN, USA), and Wolters-Kluver (Alphen aan den Rijn, Netherlands).

Human Ethics

Consent was obtained or waived by all participants in this study. Mass General Brigham issued approval 2021P002318

Animal Ethics

Animal subjects: All authors have confirmed that this study did not involve animal subjects or tissue.

References

  • 1.Prosthetic-joint infections. Zimmerli W, Trampuz A, Ochsner PE. N Engl J Med. 2004;351:1645–1654. doi: 10.1056/NEJMra040181. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Hematogenous infection in total joint replacement. Recommendations for prophylactic antibiotics. Lattimer GL, Keblish PA, Dickson TB Jr, Vernick CG, Finnegan WJ. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/490810/ JAMA. 1979;242:2213–2214. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Analysis of postoperative and hematogenous prosthetic joint-infection microbiological patterns in a large cohort. Zeller V, Kerroumi Y, Meyssonnier V, Heym B, Metten MA, Desplaces N, Marmor S. J Infect. 2018;76:328–334. doi: 10.1016/j.jinf.2017.12.016. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Origin and characteristics of haematogenous periprosthetic joint infection. Rakow A, Perka C, Trampuz A, Renz N. Clin Microbiol Infect. 2019;25:845–850. doi: 10.1016/j.cmi.2018.10.010. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Clinical presentation, risk factors, and outcomes of hematogenous prosthetic joint infection in patients with Staphylococcus aureus bacteremia. Tande AJ, Palraj BR, Osmon DR, et al. Am J Med. 2016;129:221–220. doi: 10.1016/j.amjmed.2015.09.006. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Concomitant multiple joint arthroplasty infections: report on 16 cases. Zeller V, Dedome D, Lhotellier L, Graff W, Desplaces N, Marmor S. J Arthroplasty. 2016;31:2564–2568. doi: 10.1016/j.arth.2016.02.012. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Increased mortality after prosthetic joint infection in primary THA. Gundtoft PH, Pedersen AB, Varnum C, Overgaard S. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2017;475:2623–2631. doi: 10.1007/s11999-017-5289-6. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Mortality from infective endocarditis: clinical predictors of outcome. Wallace SM, Walton BI, Kharbanda RK, Hardy R, Wilson AP, Swanton RH. Heart. 2002;88:53–60. doi: 10.1136/heart.88.1.53. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Mortality during total knee periprosthetic joint infection. Lum ZC, Natsuhara KM, Shelton TJ, Giordani M, Pereira GC, Meehan JP. J Arthroplasty. 2018;33:3783–3788. doi: 10.1016/j.arth.2018.08.021. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Early debridement, antibiotics and implant retention (DAIR) in patients with suspected acute infection after hip or knee arthroplasty - safe, effective and without negative functional impact. Barros LH, Barbosa TA, Esteves J, Abreu M, Soares D, Sousa R. J Bone Jt Infect. 2019;4:300–305. doi: 10.7150/jbji.39168. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Early surgery versus conventional treatment for infective endocarditis. Kang DH, Kim YJ, Kim SH, et al. N Engl J Med. 2012;366:2466–2473. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1112843. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Low incidence of haematogenous seeding to total hip and knee prostheses in patients with remote infections. Uçkay I, Lübbeke A, Emonet S, et al. J Infect. 2009;59:337–345. doi: 10.1016/j.jinf.2009.08.015. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Proposed modifications to the Duke criteria for the diagnosis of infective endocarditis. Li JS, Sexton DJ, Mick N, et al. Clin Infect Dis. 2000;30:633–638. doi: 10.1086/313753. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.The 2018 definition of periprosthetic hip and knee infection: an evidence-based and validated criteria. Parvizi J, Tan TL, Goswami K, Higuera C, Della Valle C, Chen AF, Shohat N. J Arthroplasty. 2018;33:1309–1314. doi: 10.1016/j.arth.2018.02.078. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.New definition for periprosthetic joint infection: from the Workgroup of the Musculoskeletal Infection Society. Parvizi J, Zmistowski B, Berbari EF, et al. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2011;469:2992–2994. doi: 10.1007/s11999-011-2102-9. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Microbiologic epidemiology depending on time to occurrence of prosthetic joint infection: a prospective cohort study. Triffault-Fillit C, Ferry T, Laurent F, et al. Clin Microbiol Infect. 2019;25:353–358. doi: 10.1016/j.cmi.2018.04.035. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Multidrug-resistant, extensively drug-resistant and pandrug-resistant bacteria: an international expert proposal for interim standard definitions for acquired resistance. Magiorakos AP, Srinivasan A, Carey RB, et al. Clin Microbiol Infect. 2012;18:268–281. doi: 10.1111/j.1469-0691.2011.03570.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Definition of successful infection management and guidelines for reporting of outcomes after surgical treatment of periprosthetic joint infection: from the Workgroup of the Musculoskeletal Infection Society (MSIS) Fillingham YA, Della Valle CJ, Suleiman LI, et al. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2019;101:0. doi: 10.2106/JBJS.19.00062. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Acceptable success rate in patients with periprosthetic knee joint infection treated with debridement, antibiotics, and implant retention. Ottesen CS, Troelsen A, Sandholdt H, Jacobsen S, Husted H, Gromov K. J Arthroplasty. 2019;34:365–368. doi: 10.1016/j.arth.2018.09.088. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Timing of debridement, antibiotics, and implant retention (DAIR) for early post-surgical hip and knee prosthetic joint infection (PJI) does not affect 1-year re-revision rates: data from the Dutch Arthroplasty Register. van der Ende B, van Oldenrijk J, Reijman M, Croughs PD, van Steenbergen LN, Verhaar JA, Bos PK. J Bone Jt Infect. 2021;6:329–336. doi: 10.5194/jbji-6-329-2021. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Evaluation one year after DAIR treatment in 91 suspected early prosthetic joint infections in primary knee and hip arthroplasty. Jacobs AM, Valkering LJ, Bénard M, Meis JF, Goosen JH. J Bone Jt Infect. 2019;4:238–244. doi: 10.7150/jbji.37757. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Two-stage exchange arthroplasty for periprosthetic joint infection: the rate and reason for the attrition after the first stage. Wang Q, Goswami K, Kuo FC, Xu C, Tan TL, Parvizi J. J Arthroplasty. 2019;34:2749–2756. doi: 10.1016/j.arth.2019.06.021. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Debridement and implant retention in the management of hip periprosthetic joint infection: outcomes following guided and rapid treatment at a single centre. Sendi P, Lötscher PO, Kessler B, Graber P, Zimmerli W, Clauss M. Bone Joint J. 2017;99-B:330–336. doi: 10.1302/0301-620X.99B3.BJJ-2016-0609.R1. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Antimicrobial tolerance in biofilms. Stewart PS. Microbiol Spectr. 2015;3 doi: 10.1128/microbiolspec.MB-0010-2014. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Review of guidelines for dental antibiotic prophylaxis for prevention of endocarditis and prosthetic joint infections and need for dental stewardship. Goff DA, Mangino JE, Glassman AH, Goff D, Larsen P, Scheetz R. Clin Infect Dis. 2020;71:455–462. doi: 10.1093/cid/ciz1118. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Prophylactic use of antibiotics for procedures after total joint replacement. Deacon JM, Pagliaro AJ, Zelicof SB, Horowitz HW. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1996;78:1755–1770. doi: 10.2106/00004623-199611000-00020. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Clinical presentation, etiology, and outcome of infective endocarditis in the 21st century: the International Collaboration on Endocarditis-Prospective Cohort Study. Murdoch DR, Corey GR, Hoen B, et al. Arch Intern Med. 2009;169:463–473. doi: 10.1001/archinternmed.2008.603. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Staphylococcus aureus bloodstream infection in patients with prosthetic joints in the prospective VIRSTA cohort study: frequency and time of occurrence of periprosthetic joint infection. Dufour S, Piroth L, Chirouze C, et al. Open Forum Infect Dis. 2019;6:0. doi: 10.1093/ofid/ofz515. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Periprosthetic joint infections as a consequence of bacteremia. Honkanen M, Jämsen E, Karppelin M, Huttunen R, Eskelinen A, Syrjänen J. Open Forum Infect Dis. 2019;6:0. doi: 10.1093/ofid/ofz218. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Staphylococcus aureus versus Staphylococcus epidermidis in periprosthetic joint infection-outcome analysis of methicillin-resistant versus methicillin-susceptible strains. Hischebeth GT, Randau TM, Ploeger MM, et al. Diagn Microbiol Infect Dis. 2019;93:125–130. doi: 10.1016/j.diagmicrobio.2018.08.012. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Cureus are provided here courtesy of Cureus Inc.

RESOURCES