OBJECTIVE: Distinguishing between complicated and uncomplicated Staphylococcus aureus bacteraemia (SAB) is therapeutically essential. However, this distinction has limitations in reflecting the heterogeneity of SAB and encouraging targeted diagnostics. Recently, a new risk stratification system for SAB metastatic infection, involving stepwise approaches to diagnosis and treatment, has been suggested. We assessed its applicability in methicillin-resistant SAB (MRSAB) patients.
METHODS: We retrospectively analysed data of a 3-year multicentre, prospective cohort of hospitalised patients with MRSAB. We classified the patients into three risk groups: low, indeterminate, and high, based on the new system and compared between-group management and outcomes.
RESULTS: Of 380 patients with MRSAB, 6.3% were classified as low-, 7.6% as indeterminate-, and 86.1% as high-risk for metastatic infection. No metastatic infection occurred in the low-, 6.9% in the indeterminate-, and 19.6% in the high-risk groups (P < 0.001). After an in-depth diagnostic work-up, patients were finally diagnosed as \'without metastatic infection (6.3%)\', \'with metastatic infection (17.4%)\', and \'uncertain for metastatic infection (76.3%)\'. 30-day mortality increased as the severity of diagnosis shifted from \'without metastatic infection\' to \'uncertain for metastatic infection\' and \'with metastatic infection\' (P = 0.09). In multivariable analysis, independent factors associated with metastatic complications were suspicion of endocarditis in transthoracic echocardiography, clinical signs of metastatic infection, Pitt bacteraemia score ≥ 4, and persistent bacteraemia.
CONCLUSIONS: The new risk stratification system shows promise in predicting metastatic complications and guiding work-up and management of MRSAB. However, reducing the number of cases labelled as \'high-risk\' and \'uncertain for metastatic infection\' remains an area for improvement.

OBJECTIVE: Current guidelines recommend cefazolin as an alternative to antistaphylococcal penicillins (ASPs) in methicillin-susceptible Staphylococcus aureus (MSSA) infective endocarditis despite the lack of comparative study. The objective of this study was to evaluate the comparative outcomes of cefazolin vs. ASPs in MSSA infective endocarditis.
METHODS: This was a retrospective analysis of an observational multicentre cohort study using prospectively collected data from patients with MSSA endocarditis confirmed by endocarditis team and treated either with cefazolin or ASPs between July 2013 and December 2018. Patients were excluded if they received both treatments. The primary outcome was 90-day all-cause mortality.
RESULTS: Of 210 patients included, 53 patients (25.2%) received cefazolin and 157 (74.8%) received ASPs. The overall 90-day mortality rate was 27.6% (58/210 patients), 24.5% (13/53) in the cefazolin group vs. 28.7% (45/157) in the ASP group (p 0.561). Premature antimicrobial discontinuation due to adverse events occurred less frequently with cefazolin than with ASPs (0/53 vs. 13/157 patients; p 0.042). In multivariate analysis, there was no difference in 90-day mortality between cefazolin and ASPs (adjusted odds ratio (aOR), 1.2; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.49-2.91; p 0.681), while age (aOR, 1.06; 95% CI, 1.03-1.09; p < 0.001), Charlson comorbidity index (aOR, 1.18; 95% CI, 1.02-1.36 p 0.023), cerebral embolism (aOR, 2.83; 95% CI, 1.33-6.14; p 0.007) and intensive care unit admission (aOR, 4.16; 95% CI, 1.89-9.59; p 0.001) were factors significantly associated with higher mortality.
CONCLUSIONS: Cefazolin seems to be a possible alternative to ASPs in MSSA endocarditis. More studies are needed to confirm these results and determine which treatment should be recommended as first-line therapy.