Open Access
Open Peer Review

This article has Open Peer Review reports available.

How does Open Peer Review work?

Daptomycin for the treatment of major gram-positive infections after cardiac surgery

Contributed equally
Journal of Cardiothoracic Surgery201611:120

https://doi.org/10.1186/s13019-016-0519-7

Received: 2 March 2016

Accepted: 27 July 2016

Published: 4 August 2016

Abstract

Background

Infection is a main cause of morbidity and mortality after heart surgery, with multi-resistant pathogens increasingly representing a challenge. Daptomycin provides bactericidal activity against gram-positive organisms that are resistant to standard treatment including vancomycin.

Methods

A cohort of cardiac surgical patients, treated with daptomycin for major infection at two tertiary care centers, were retrospectively studied with a particular focus on the type of infection, causative pathogens and co-infections, daptomycin dosage, adverse events and outcome in order to provide evidence for the efficiency and safety of daptomycin in a distinct high-risk patient population.

Results

Sixty-five patients (87.7 % males, 60.4 ± 13.5 years) who had undergone aortic surgery (20.0 %), ventricular assist device (VAD) implantation (21.5 %), combined procedures (21.5 %), coronary artery bypass grafting (12.3 %), isolated valve surgery (15.4 %) and heart transplantation (7.7 %) were diagnosed with catheter-related infection (26.1 %), valve endocarditis (18.8 %), sternal wound (13.0 %), VAD-associated (11.6 %), cardiac implantable electrophysiological device (CIED)-associated (4.1 %), respiratory tract (4.3 %), bloodstream (4.3 %) and other infection (4.3 %). In 13.0 %, no focus of infection was identified though symptoms of severe infection were present. The most frequent pathogens were Staphylococcus epidermidis (30.4 %), Staphylococcus aureus (23.1 %) and Enterococcus species (10.1 %). Daptomycin doses ranging from 3 mg/kg every 48 h to 10 mg/kg every 24 h were administered for 15.4 ± 11.8 days. 87.0 % of the cases were classified as success, 7.2 % as treatment failure and 5.8 as non-evaluable. Adverse events were limited to one case of mild and one case of moderate neutropenia with recovery upon termination of treatment.

Conclusion

Daptomycin proved safe and effective in major infection in high-risk cardiac surgical patients.

Keywords

Daptomycin Major infection after cardiac surgery Gram-positive infection Multi-resistant pathogens

Background

Major infection is a severe complication in cardiac surgical patients and may consist of sternal wound infection, bloodstream or catheter-related infection, native or prosthetic valve endocarditis, or infection associated with other implantable devices such as CIEDs, VADs or vascular prosthetic material. Recent investigations of large patient cohorts showed incidences of major infection after cardiac surgery amounting to up to nearly 5 % [18]. Investigation into the microbiological features of major infections in cardiac surgical patients showed that the majority of isolates are gram-positive [2, 7, 913]. As the number of gram-positive bacteria, resistant to standard treatment (aminopenicillins or cephalosporines) is substantial, the initial choice of drug is of utmost importance [1416].

Vancomycin, the first-choice drug used against methicillin-resistant gram-positive pathogens, is associated with considerable side effects. Of these, nephrotoxicity is particularly unfavorable in the cardiac surgical population in whom acute kidney injury was reported to occur at a rate of up to 30 % and subtle renal injury is present in virtually all patients in the early postoperative phase [1719]. Additionally, vancomycin does not achieve high tissue levels and has limited activity in the biofilm layer on implanted materials. Correct dosage requires drug monitoring and continuous application, which is currently favored, is not suitable for general wards [2022]. Therefore, the introduction of alternative substances such as linezolid, tigecyclin, quinupristin-dalfopristin and daptomycin has met with particular interest [23].

Daptomycin is a cyclic lipopeptide derived from Streptomyces roseosporus as a fermentation product and has rapid concentration-dependent bactericidal activity against most gram-positive pathogens including methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA), vancomycin intermediate susceptible Staphylococcus aureus and vancomycin-resistant enterococci [2428]. In 2003, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved daptomycin for the treatment of complicated skin and soft tissue infections, and in 2006, an additional FDA approval was granted for the treatment of bloodstream infections and right-sided endocarditis. In Europe, Daptomycin was approved for the treatment of complicated skin and soft tissue infections in 2006, and for the treatment of Staphylococcus aureus right-sided infective endocarditis and bacteremia in 2007 [2931]. Among the anti-infective substances recently introduced, daptomycin stands out for its excellent tissue penetration, killing rate and penetration into biofilm layers.

The aim of the present study is to review our clinical experience with daptomycin for the treatment of major gram-positive infections after heart surgery with a focus on safety, tolerability and efficacy, thus providing complementary insight into the application of daptomycin in challenging infections in a highly specific patient cohort.

Methods

Patients, definitions and data collection

We retrospectively identified all consecutive adult cardiac surgical patients with major infective complications after cardiac surgery who were treated with daptomycin at two tertiary centers from 2008 to 2009 and from 2011 to 2014, respectively. None of the patients were treated with daptomycin in the setting of a clinical trial. The patients at the first center provided informed consent for retrospective evaluation of their data including reporting to the European Cubicin (Novartis Pharma GmbH, Nuremberg, Germany) Outcomes Registry and Experience (EU-CORE) database. For the part of the study implemented at the second center, institutional review board approval including a waiver of informed consent was granted (AZ 511/15).

Data were obtained by reviewing medical records with a special focus on signs and symptoms of infection, on the one hand, and findings potentially indicating adverse effects of daptomycin, on the other. Diagnosis of infection relied on clinical assessment, imaging, laboratory parameters and microbiological findings. Therapy with daptomycin was instituted at the discretion of the senior physicians in charge of the respective intensive care unit (ICU) and independently of the present study, which is a purely retrospective analysis of daptomycin use that was not initiated until after completion of treatment in all patients enrolled.

The clinical outcomes upon completion of daptomycin therapy were retrospectively evaluated and classified as “success” where clinical signs and symptoms were found to have resolved and/or cultures returned negative and/or infection markers decreased. Outcomes were classified as “non-evaluable” where the response to therapy with daptomycin could not be determined, for example due to the effects of secondary infection or insufficient data, and as “failure” where the infection treated with daptomycin persisted, worsened or recurred.

Statistical analysis

Descriptive statistics were calculated using means and standard deviations, frequencies and percentages as appropriate. Data analysis was performed using SPSS 22.0 (SPSS, Inc., Chicago, US).

Results

Daptomycin was administered in 69 cases of major infection in 65 patients (mean age 60.4 ± 13.5 years, 87.7 % male). Two patients had more than one course of daptomycin treatment, with the subsequent courses not related to the respective initial infection. Demographic parameters and baseline characteristics, as well as diagnostics, treatment and outcomes are summarized in Table 1.
Table 1

Summary of baseline, infection, diagnostic, treatment and outcome parameters

Demographic data and comorbidities

(patients, n = 65)

Cardiac surgical procedure

(patients, n = 65)

Age [years]

Mean 60.44 ± 13,51

Aortic surgery

13 (20.0 %)

Male

57 (87.7 %)

VAD implantation

14 (21.5 %)

Weight [kg]

Mean 80.57 ± 14.64

Combined procedures

14 (21.5 %)

Diabetes

17 (26.2 %)

CABG

8 (12.3 %)

COPD

6 (9.2 %)

Isolated valve surgery

10 (15.4 %)

Rheumatic disease

1 (1.5 %)

Heart transplantation

5 (7,7 %)

Hemodialysis

9 (13.8 %)

CABG + CIED removal

1 (1.5 %)

Classified as multi-morbid

31(47.7 %)

Classified as high-risk procedure

32 (67.7 %)

Focus of infection

(courses of treatment, n = 69)

Pathogens isolated

(courses of treatment, n = 69)

Central venous catheter-associated infection

16 (23.2 %)

Staphylococcus epidermidis

21 (30.4 %)

Valve endocarditis

13 (18.8 %)

Staphylococcus aureus, MRSA

9 (13.0 %)

Sternal wound infection

9 (13.0 %)

Staphylococcus aureus, MSSA

7 (10.1 %)

VAD-associated infection

8 (11.6 %)

Enterococcus spp.

7 (10.1 %)

CIED-associated infection

3 (4.3 %)

Other

6 (8.7 %)

Respiratory tract infection

3 (4.3 %)

No causative organism identified

19 (27.5 %)

Bloodstream infection

3 (4.3 %)

  

Infection of arterial lines

2 (2.9 %)

  

Other infection

3 (4.3 %)

  

No focus of infection identified

9 (13.0 %)

  

Secondary infection

(courses of treatment, n = 69)

Diagnostics

(courses of treatment, n = 69)

Present in

34 (49.3 %)

Clinical signs and symptoms only

15 (21.7 %)

Fungal pathogen

24 (70.6 %)

Positive swab/tissue sample from infection site

23 (33.3 %)

Gram-negative rods

6 (17.6 %)

Positive blood culture

15 (21.7 %)

Staph. aureus

2 (5.9 %)

Echocardiographic findings

13 (18.8 %)

Coagulase-negative staphylococcus

1 (2.9 %)

CT findings

4 (5.8 %)

Propionibacterium acnes

1 (9.1 %)

Positive culture from catheter tip

15 (21.7 %)

  

Multiple diagnostics

10 (14.5 %)

Surgical/interventional measures

(courses of treatment, n = 69)

Classification of outcome

(courses of treatment, n = 69)

Valve replacement for endocarditis

12 (17.4 %)

Success

60 (87.0 %)

Wound debridement (with/without removal of foreign material, placement of drains, vacuum assisted closure)

17 (24.6 %)

Failure

5 (7.2 %)

Removal of infected venous or arterial catheters

19 (27.5 %)

Non-evaluable

4 (5.8 %)

Placement of drains

2 (2.9 %)

  

In 79.7 % of the cases, patients had received antibacterial treatment with other substances including penicillins, cephalosporins, carbapenems, aminoglycosides, glycopeptides and oxazolidinones before the first dose of daptomycin. In 5 cases of endocarditis, daptomycin was initiated before surgery. In all other cases, daptomycin was administered after cardiac surgical procedures.

The study cohort comprised 13 (20.0 %) patients who had undergone aortic surgery including isolated aortic valve replacement as well as aortic replacement procedures. 14 (21.5 %) patients each had undergone VAD implantation and combined procedures. CABG had been performed in 8 (12.3 %) further patients, isolated valve surgery in 10 (15.4 %) and heart transplantation in 5 (7.7 %). A total of 32 (67.7 %) were classified as high-risk procedures.

Investigation of the initial focus of infection showed that central venous catheter-associated infection (n = 16, 23.2 %) was the most frequent indication for treatment with daptomycin, followed by valve endocarditis (n = 13, 18.8 %), sternal wound infection (n = 9, 13.0 %) and VAD-associated infection (n = 8, 11.6 %). CIED-associated, respiratory tract and bloodstream infection accounted for 3 (4.3 %) cases each, 2 (2.9 %) patients were diagnosed with infection of arterial lines, and 3 (4.3 %) with other infection. No focus of infection was identified in 9 (13.0 %) cases.

Staphylococcus epidermidis (n = 21, 30.4 %) was the most frequent pathogen isolated, followed by methicillin resistant (n = 9, 13.0 %) and methicillin-susceptible (n = 7, 10.1 %) Staphylococcus aureus and Enterococcus species (n = 7, 10.1 %). No causative organism was identified in 19 (27.5 %) cases. Secondary infection was present in 34 (49.3 %) cases, with fungal pathogens accounting for 70.6 % (n = 24) of the secondary infections. The remaining secondary infections were caused by gram-negative rods (n = 6, 17.6 %), Staphylococcus aureus (n = 2, 5.9 %), coagulase-negative Staphylococcus species (n = 1, 2.9 %) and Propionibacterium acnes (n = 1, 9.1 %).

In a third of the cases (n = 23, 33.3 %), a causative organism was identified by microbiological examination of swabs or tissues from the infection sites. Blood cultures and cultures from catheter tips were positive in 15 (21.7 %) cases each. Echocardiographic and CT findings supported the diagnosis of major infection in 13 (18.8 %) and 4 (5.8 %) of the cases, and 15 (21.7 %) cases were diagnosed on the basis of clinical signs and symptoms only. In 10 (21.7 %) cases, the diagnosis of major infection was established using more than one diagnostic modality.

Treatment with daptomycin lasted 15.4 ± 11.8 days (range 2–92 days). In all but 12 (17.4 %) cases, patients received daptomycin once daily. Doses ranged from 3 mg/kg at intervals of 48 h to 10 mg/kg at intervals of 24 h. The median dose was 6 mg/kg/24 h and administered in 20 (29.05) cases, while doses exceeding 6 mg/kg/day were administered in 15 (21.7 %) cases. Patients with sternal wound infection received between 5 mg/kg and 8 mg/kg at intervals of 24 h, those with catheter-related infection from 3 mg/kg at intervals of 48 h to 7 mg/kg at intervals of 24 h, those with VAD-associated infection between 3 mg/kg and 7 mg/kg per day, and those with endocarditis up to 10 mg/kg per day.

The courses of daptomycin for VAD-associated infection, of which three were administered for mediastinitis with VAD involvement, two for deep driveline infection, and one each for abdominal wall abscess with driveline involvement, thoracic wall abscess with VAD involvement and intrapericardial hematoma and intrathoracic abscesses, showed considerable variation and consisted of between 3 mg and 7 mg/kg per day.

Interventional measures or surgical therapy supplementing the antimicrobial regimen were performed in 50 (72.5 %) of the cases. Removal of infected catheters (n = 19, 27.5 %) was the most frequent supplementary measure, followed by wound debridement (n = 17, 24.6 %) with or without removal of foreign material, placement of drains and/or vacuum-assisted closure. Valve replacement for endocarditis was performed in 12 (17.4 %) cases, and drains were placed in 2 (2.9 %).

The vast majority of cases (n = 60, 87.0 %) were classified as success. 4 (5.8 %) were classified as “non-evaluable” because improvement could not be assessed due to secondary infection, severe deterioration and death for other causes, or insufficient data. 5 (7.2 %) cases were classified as “failure” because infection persisted or kept returning.

Serum creatinine was determined once or twice daily in the course of routine ICU panels. The baseline creatinine clearance, defined as the level before the first dose of daptomycin, was 54.3 ± 38.7 ml/min. Upon completion of treatment with daptomycin, a creatinine clearance of 53.7 ± 42.5 ml/min was measured. A significant deterioration of creatinine clearance and need for renal replacement therapy during daptomycin treatment was noted only in a patient who received 3 courses of daptomycin for deep sternal wound infection with VAD involvement at intervals of > 1 month and experienced multi-organ failure secondary to sepsis and heart failure.

Creatinine phosphokinase (CPK) levels were monitored closely at both centers. Increases occurred in nearly all patients, but as fluctuations were found to be associated with cardiac surgery, no valid conclusion could be drawn from the evaluation of CPK values at baseline, during and after daptomycin. Monitoring of white blood cell (WBC) levels for leukopenia yielded minimum values between 1.9 G/l and 19.4 G/l. A drop in WBC to values below the normal range was noted only in two patients of whom one showed only temporary mild leukopenia with a minimum WBC count of 3.46 G/L. In the second, a decrease from 12.6 G/L to 1.72 G/L during daptomycin treatment with a recovery to 3.35 G/L upon termination of treatment was noted. Beyond this, no adverse events or undesired side effects attributable to daptomycin treatment were registered.

Discussion

The outcomes of our previous work, which demonstrated the efficacy of daptomycin in cardiac surgical patients [32], are confirmed by the results of the present study. With 87.0 % of the cases assessed as clinical success and 7.2 % as treatment failure, our current results are comparable to the success and failure rates of 79 and 7.5 % reported by the European Cubicin Outcome Registry and Experience EU-CORE [33]. Our cohort, however, was highly specific in that our patients had undergone a variety of mostly high-risk cardiac surgical procedures that resulted in considerable surgical trauma and the effects of cardiopulmonary bypass adding to a post-surgical risk profile that resulted not only from the underlying cardiac conditions, but also from comorbidities, frailty, presence of foreign material including heart valves and VADs and, in the case of heart transplantation, need for immunosuppression. In addition, a significant share of our patients were treated for challenging conditions such as deep sternal wound infection, CIED- or VAD-associated infection and endocarditis, while skin and soft tissue infections made up 44 % of the infections registered in the EU-CORE database, with smaller numbers treated for bacteraemia (22 %), endocarditis (12 %) or osteomyelitis (6 %).

In our patient cohort, endocarditis, sternal wound infection and VAD-associated infection were the most frequent types of infection specific to cardiac surgical patients. Of these, sternal wound infection has variously been found to be a promising area of application for daptomycin, which was reported to be safe and effective [32, 34] and to have yielded favourable mid-term results [35]. With regard to osteomyelitis not limited to the sternum, encouraging results for the application of daptomycin were published in a number of single-center reports and reviews [36, 37], as well as from the CORE and EU-CORE registries. In the EU-CORE database, 220 of 3621 patients registered from 2006 to 2010 were treated for osteomyelitis, with the most common sites of infection being knees and hips, and the most common pathogens Staphylococcus aureus and coagulase-negative staphylococci. Cure and improval were reported in 23 % and 52 % of patients treated for osteomyelitis, respectively, yielding an overall clinical success rate of 75 %. Notably, success was similar between MRSA and MSSA and lowest treatment failure rates were observed for coagulase-negative staphylococcal pathogens [38]. From the US-based CORE registry, improval rates ≥ 90 % were reported for patients treated with daptomycin for osteomyelitis, with a higher success rate in in-patients vs. out-patients [39] and a trend towards higher improval rates in patients receiving a daily dose of ≥ 6 mg/kg [40].

The issue of higher dosage in patients with particularly severe infection, including osteomyelitis, was repeatedly addressed, and it was pointed out that daptomycin was well-tolerated at doses ≥ 6 mg per kg to which better outcomes were attributed [37, 4043]. The Infectious Diseases Society of America, in its 2011 guidelines [44], not only included daptomycin, though not licensed for the treatment of osteomyelitis, as an option for the treatment of MRSA osteomyelitis, but in keeping with the assumption that higher daily dosages will compensate for low vascularisation of bone tissue, recommended the maximum approved daily dose of 6 mg/kg daptomycin. Considering the data published to date, dosage and the possibility to apply high-dose daptomycin regimens may be assumed to be of special importance in the context of osteomyelitis even though evaluation of the EU-CORE database showed no dose-related outcomes in patients treated for osteomyelitis [38].

When it comes to justifying administration of high-dose daptomycin, cardiac surgical patients with sternal wound infections represent a distinct subgroup in that sternal osteomyelitis may rapidly progress to frank and potentially lethal mediastinitis. Additionally, the issues of bone penetration of antibiotics and vascularisation of osseous structures must be viewed against the background of the fact that the sternal blood supply is impaired due to sternotomy and sternal closure and, in the case of CABG, unilateral or bilateral internal thoracic artery harvesting. Nevertheless, data guiding daptomycin dosage in cases of sternal osteomyelitis and mediastinitis are scarce. In our patients, those treated for sternal wound infection received daptomycin at daily doses between 4 and 8 mg/kg, thus contrasting with previous authors who reported administration of a standard daily dose of 6 mg/kg [45].

A role for high-dose daptomycin was also suggested for the treatment of infective endocarditis (IE) including left-sided and double-sided IE [43, 4648]. Of the patients registered in the EU-CORE database from 2006 to 2010, 10 % were treated for IE including 69 % of left-sided IE. The majority (59 %) received 6 mg/day, while doses ≥ 6 and up to 12 mg/day were administered in 26 % of cases, with coagulase-negative staphylococcus and Enterococcus faecalis associated with daptomycin dosages exceeding 6 mg/kg [49].

Our patient cohort comprised 13 patients with IE. Contrasting with a share of only 50 % in the EU-CORE database [49], all but one treated for postoperative prosthetic valve endocarditis underwent surgical treatment. This is noteworthy in that evaluation of EU-CORE registry data showed that surgical intervention is typically associated with the most severe forms of IE, on the one hand, and that patients receiving surgical intervention had a higher success rate than those managed medically, on the other [49]. The overall success rate determined for treatment of IE in the framework of the EU CORE registry was 80 % (91 % for right-sided and 76 % for left-sided IE, and higher dosage regimens were found to be associated with a higher success rate of 90 % in patients treated with ≥ 8 mg/day (91 % for right-sided and 89 % for left-sided IE) [49]. A slightly lower success rate of 85.9 %, with success and failure rates similar in the left and right-sided IE groups, was reported from a multi-centric study including 70 patients who received daily doses between 8.2 and 10.0 mg/kg per day [47]. Additionally, successful treatment of IE using daily doses up to 12 mg/kg was reported [46, 50, 51]. This is in keeping with the results of our retrospective analysis, which also showed that the majority of patients treated for endocarditis received ≥ 6 mg and up to 10 mg/kg per day.

In the report from the EU-CORE registry, it was additionally pointed out that the rate of CIED-associated infections and the number of patients requiring device extraction in addition to antimicrobial therapy has risen substantially over the past few years [49]. Though the number of patients with CIED-associated infection in our patient cohort was low, CIED-associated infection represents a potentially fatal complication that requires aggressive treatment. This is reflected by the fact that, in a recent study of 25 patients treated for CIED-associated infection, daily doses between 6.4 and 10.7 mg/kg were administered, with lead extraction performed in 88 % of patients. Treatment success was 80 %, with complete microbiological success observed in 92 % [52]. Of a further collective of nine patients treated for CIED-associated infection with daptomycin, 7 had their CIED removed. Eight patients, including those who did not undergo system removal, were cured with a daily dosage of 6 mg/kg [53]. Further literature on treatment of CIED-associated infection with daptomycin in scarce and mostly limited to individual case reports [5457] even though daptomycin, with its ability to penetrate into biofilms [5860], is well suited for the treatment of CIED-associated infections, which are characterized by biofilm development on leads.

This particular aspect is shared by VAD-associated infection, where biofilm development on device surfaces and drivelines also renders the eradication of infection difficult. Our study population comprised > 20 % of VAD recipients, reflecting that antimicrobial treatment using daptomycin was commenced as soon as major infection in a VAD recipients was suspected. The particular severity of VAD-associated infection is reflected by the fact that even though two of our VAD recipients received three courses of daptomycin each, deep driveline infection kept recurring in one, while the other finally succumbed to fungal mediastinitis with VAD involvement. Our retrospective analysis has shown that daptomycin was frequently chosen for the treatment of VAD recipients because of its bactericidal activity against multi-resistant gram-positive organisms, its good penetration into biofilms, and because it has variously proven efficient in treating infection in VAD recipients [6163].

Of the remaining patients, those in whom the respiratory tract was designated as the primary focus of infection deserve mention because daptomycin is expressly not recommended for treatment of pulmonary infections [64, 65]. In these cases, the respiratory tract was indicated as the initial focus of infection and the microbiological results obtained from the patients’ respiratory secretion served to guide antibiotic management, but daptomycin was not chosen to treat gram-positive respiratory tract infection as such, but to prevent seeding of pathogens from the respiratory tract in severely compromised patients in an ICU setting.

In the largest subgroup of our patient cohort, i.e. patients with catheter-associated infections, we made more liberal use of daptomycin than recommended by the Infectious Diseases Society of America in its 2009 Update of its Clinical Practice Guidelines for the Diagnosis and Management of Intravascular Catheter-Related Infection. These recommend alternative agents such as daptomycin for empirical therapy of catheter-related bloodstream infections in health care settings with an elevated prevalence of MRSA in which the preponderance of MRSA isolates have vancomycin minimum inhibitory concentration values > 2 μg/ml. Additionally, daptomycin is listed as an option in patients with catheter-related bloodstream infection due to ampicillin- and vancomycin-resistant enterococci and patients receiving hemodialysis with catheter-related bloodstream infection due to vancomycin-resistant enterococci [66]. In contrast to the dosages of 6 mg/kg and 6–8 mg/kg per day recommended by these guidelines, our patients with catheter-related infection mostly received daptomycin at lower doses ranging from 3 mg/kg at intervals of 48 h to 7 mg/kg at intervals of 24 h. Treatment success in patients with catheter-related infection was nevertheless achieved in 72.2 % of cases, compared to a total success rate of 83.7 %.

Assessment of the overall outcome in our patient cohort yielded a favourable profile for daptomycin in terms not only of efficacy and clinical success rates, but also with regard to tolerability and safety even in high doses. This applies, in particular, to muscle toxicity and drug-related CPK elevations [33, 67, 68], which were reported to have occurred more frequently in patients receiving daily doses > 6 mg/kg [49], but also to renal impairment [69, 70] and leukopenia [71, 72]. Regular monitoring of our patients for CPK, creatinine clearance and WBC implemented showed no relevant changes in creatine clearance and CPK levels from baseline to completion that were attributed to daptomycin, and only one case of moderate leucopenia that resolved upon termination of treatment.

Limitations

The shortcomings of the present study mainly consist in its retrospective design, which rendered evaluation of the treatment success difficult in some cases and led to 4 (5.8 %) cases being classified as “non-evaluable” because improvement could not be assessed due to secondary infection, severe deterioration and death for other causes, or insufficient data.

Conclusions

In conclusion, daptomycin treatment was successful in the clinical management of patients with major infection after cardiac surgery and therefore represents a promising alternative to conventional antimicrobial treatment of challenging infections in cardiac surgical patients. Our two-center experience confirms efficacy, as well as tolerability and non-toxicity, in a highly specific patient population that is characterized by surgical trauma adding to cardiac morbidity, comorbidity and frailty. Reports on higher doses in patients treated for particularly severe infections yielding improved success rates without causing more adverse events warrant further investigation in cardiac surgical patients with major infection, too.

Abbreviations

CIED, cardiac implantable electrophysiological device; CORE, US-based cubicin Outcomes Registry and Experience; CPK, creatinine phosphokinase; EU-CORE, European Cubicin Outcome Registry and Experience; FDA, Food and Drug Administration; ICU, intensive care unit; IE, infective endocarditis; MRSA, methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus; MSSA, methicillin-susceptible Staphylococcus aureus; VAD, ventricular assist device; WBC, white blood cell count

Declarations

Acknowledgments

We thank the physicians of the ICUs at our two centers for the care they provided for the patients.

Funding

The authors have received no funding for the preparation of this paper.

Authors’ contributions

KA, LB and BFA conceived the design of the project. KA and LB collected and interpreted the data and drafted the manuscript. WM, WF, FK and SUA contributed to interpreting the data, evaluating drug effects and side effects and critically appraised the manuscript . BFA gave final approval of the version to be published. All authors have read and approved the final manuscript.

Competing interests

Andres Beiras-Fernandez has received research grants from Novartis for infection projects/studies, and was a member of a Novartis Speakers’ Panel in the past. The other authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Approval including a waiver of informed consent for retrospective data collection and evaluation and reporting to the EU-CORE database at the first tertiary care center, and approval including a waiver of informed consent for retrospective data collection and evaluation at the second tertiary center (AZ 511/15), were granted and are available for review by the Editor-in-Chief of the present journal.

Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

Authors’ Affiliations

(1)
Department of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery, University Hospital Goethe University Frankfurt
(2)
Department of Anesthesiology
(3)
Department of Cardiac Surgery, University Hospital Grosshadern, LM-University
(4)
Department of Anesthesiology, Clinic of Fuerstenfeldbruck

References

  1. Kuboba H, Miyata H, Motomura N, Ono M, Takamoto S, Harii K, Oura N, Hirabayashi S, Kyo S. Deep sternal wound infection after cardiac surgery. J Cardiothorac Surg. 2013;8:132.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  2. Filsoufi F, Castillo JG, Rahmanian PB, Broumand SR, Silvay G, Carpentier A, Adams DH. Epidemiology of deep sternal wound infection in cardiac surgery. J Cardiothorac Vasc Anesth. 2009;23:488–94.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Gelijns AC, Moskowitz AJ, Acker MA, Argenziano M, Geller NL, Puskas JD, Perrault LP, Smith PK, Kron IL, Michler RE, Miller MA, Gardner TJ, Ascheim DD, Ailawadi G, Lackner P, Goldsmith LA, Robichaud S, Miller RA, Rose EA, Ferguson Jr TB, Horvath KA, Moquete EG, Parides MK, Bagiella E, O’Gara PT, Blackstone EH, Cardiothoracic Surgical Trials Network (CTSN). Management practices and major infections after cardiac surgery. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2014;64:372–81.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  4. Fowler Jr VG, O’Brien SM, Muhlbaier LH, Corey GR, Ferguson TB, Peterson ED. Clinical predictors of major infections after cardiac surgery. Circulation. 2005;112:I358–65.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Chen LF, Arduino JM, Sheng S, Muhlbaier LH, Kanafani ZA, Harris AD, Fraser TG, Allen K, Corey GR, Fowler Jr VG. Epidemiology and outcome of major postoperative infections following cardiac surgery: risk factors and impact of pathogen type. Am J Infect Control. 2012;40:963–8.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  6. Sharma M, Berriel-Cass D, Baran Jr J. Sternal surgical-site infection following coronary artery bypass graft: prevalence, microbiology, and complications during a 43-month period. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2004;25:468–71.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Matros E, Aranki SF, Bayer LR, McGurk S, Neuwalder J, Orgill DP. Reduction in incidence of deep sternal wound infections: random or real? J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2010;139:680–5.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Shih T, Zhang M, Kommareddi M, Boeve TJ, Harrington SD, Holmes RJ, Roth G, Theurer PF, Prager RL, Likoski DS, for the Michigan Society of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgeons Quality Collaborative. Center-level variation in infection rates after coronary artery bypass grafting. Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes. 2014;7:567–73.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  9. Chaudhuri A, Shekar K, Coulter C. Post-operative deep sternal wound infections: making an early microbiological diagnosis. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 2012;41:1304–8.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Gardlund B, Vaage J, Bitkover CY. Postoperative mediastinitis in cardiac surgery – microbiology and pathogenesis. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 2002;21:825–30.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Eklund AM, Lyytikäinen O, Klemets P, Huotari K, Anttila VJ, Werkkala KA, Valtonen M. Mediastinitis after more than 10,000 cardiac surgical procedures. Ann Thorac Surg. 2006;82:1784–9.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Baddour LM, Bettman MA, Bolger AF, Epstein AE, Ferrieri P, Gerber MA, Gewitz MH, Jacobs AK, Levison ME, Newburger JW, Pallasch TJ, Wilson WR, Baltimore RS, Falace DA, Shulman ST, Tani LY, Taubert KA. Nonvalvular cardiovascular device-related infections. Circulation. 2003;108:2015–31.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Nof E, Epstein LM. Complications of cardiac implants: handling device infections. Eur Heart J. 2013;34:229–36.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Rice LB. Antimicrobial resistance in gram-positive bacteria. Am J Infect Control. 2006;34:S11–19.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Enoch DA, Bygott JM, Daly ML, Karas JA. Daptomycin. J Infect. 2007;55:205–13.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Linden PK. Treatment options for vancomycin-resistant enterococcal infections. Drugs. 2002;62:425–41.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Karkouti K, Wijeysundera DN, Yau TM, Callum JL, Cheng DC, Crowther M, Dupuis JY, Fremes SE, Kent B, Laflamme C, Lamy A, Legare JF, Mazer CD, Stuart A, McCluskey SA, Rubens FD, Sawchuk C, Beatty WS. Acute kidney injury after cardiac surgery. Circulation. 2009;119:495–502.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Rosner MH, Okusa MD. Acute kidney injury associated with cardiac surgery. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol. 2006;1:19–32.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Hauer D, Kilger E, Kaufmann I, Kreth S, Beiras-Fernandez A, Briegel J, Schelling G, Schmidt M, Weis F. Risk and outcome analysis of renal replacement therapies in patients after cardiac surgery with pre-operatively normal renal function. Anaesthesia. 2009;64:615–9.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Wiederhold NP, Coyle EA, Raad II, Prince RA, Lewis RE. Antibacterial activity of linezolid and vancomycin in an in vitro pharmacodynamic model of gram-positive catheter-related bacteraemia. J Antimicrob Chemother. 2005;55:792–5.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Curtin J, Cormican M, Fleming G, Keelehan J, Colleran E. Linezolid compared with eperezolid, vancomycin, and gentamicin in an in vitro model of antimicrobial lock therapy for Staphylococcus epidermidis central venous catheter-related biofilm infections. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2003;47:3145–8.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  22. Blot S. MRSA pneumonia: better outcome through continuous infusion of vancomycin? Crit Care Med. 2005;33:2127–8.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Micek ST. Alternatives to vancomycin for the treatment of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus infections. Clin Infect Dis. 2007;45:S184–190.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Kanafani ZA, Corey GR. Daptomycin: a rapidly bactericidal lipopeptide for the treatment of gram-positive infections. Expert Rev Anti Infect Ther. 2007;5:177–84.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Beiras-Fernandez A, Vogt F, Sodian R, Weis F. Daptomycin: a novel lipopeptide antibiotic against gram-positive pathogens. Infect Drug Resist. 2010;3:95–101.PubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  26. Castanheira M, Jones RN, Sader HS. Update of the in vitro activity of daptomycin tested against 6710 gram-positive cocci isolated in North America (2006). Diagn Microbiol Infect Dis. 2008;61:235–9.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Tally FP, DeBruin MF. Development of daptomycin for gram-positive infections. J Antimicrob Chemother. 2000;46:523–6.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Smith PF, Booker BM, Ogundele AB, Kelchin P. Comparative in vitro activities of daptomycin, linezolid, and quinupristin/dalfopristin against Gram-positive bacterial isolates from a large cancer center. Diagn Microbiol Infect Dis. 2005;52:255–9.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Novartis Europharm Ltd. Summary of product characteristics. 2009.Google Scholar
  30. Shoemaker DM, Simou J, Roland WE. A review of daptomycin for injection (Cubicin) in the treatment of complicated skin and skin structure infections. Ther Clin Risk Manag. 2006;2:169–74.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  31. Finney MS, Crank CW, Segreti J. Use of daptomycin to treat drug-resistant gram-positive bone and joint infections. Curr Med Res Opin. 2005;21:1923–6.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. Weis F, Heyn J, Hinske CL, Vogt F, Weis M, Kur F, Hagl C, Beiras-Fernandez A. Daptomycin as supportive treatment option in patients developing mediastinitis after open cardiac surgery. J Cardiothorac Surg. 2012;7:81.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  33. Gonzalez-Ruiz A, Beiras-Fernandez A, Lehmkuhl H, Seaton RA, Loeffler J, Chaves RL. Clinical experience with daptomycin in Europe: the first 2.5 years. J Antimicrob Chemother. 2011;66:912–9.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  34. Popov AF, Schmitto JD, Jebran AF, Bireta C, Friedrich M, Rajaruthnam D, Coskun KO, Braeuer A, Hinz J, Tirilomis T, Schoendube FA. Treatment of gram-positive deep sternal wound infections in cardiac surgery – experiences with daptomycin. J Cardiothorac Surg. 2011;6:112.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  35. Ort KR, Jebran FA, Bireta C, Danner BC, Bougioukas I, Schoendube FA, Popov AF. Midterm results after treatment of gram-positive deep sternal wound infection with daptomycin for cardiac surgery patients. J Cardiothorac Surg. 2013;8:21.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  36. Moenster RP, Linneman TW, Call WB, Kay CL, McEvoy TA, Sanders JL. The potential role of newer gram-positive antibiotics in the setting of osteomyelitis of adults. J Clin Pharm Ther. 2013;38:89–96.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. Larioza J, Girard A, Brown RB. Clinical experience with daptomycin for outpatient parenteral antibiotic therapy. Am J Med Sci. 2011;342:486–8.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. Seaton RA, Malizos KN, Viale P, Gargalianos-Kakolyris P, Sanantonio T, Petrelli E, Pathan R, Heep M, Chaves RL. Daptomycin use in patients with osteomyelitis: a preliminary report from the EU-CORE database. J Antimicrob Chemother. 2013;68:1642–9.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  39. Martone WJ, Lindfield KC, Katz DE. Outpatient parenteral antibiotic therapy with daptomycin: insights from a patient registry. Int J Clin Pract. 2008;62:1183–7.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  40. Crompton JA, North DS, McConnel SA, Lamp KC. Safety and efficacy of daptomycin in the treatment of osteomyelitis: results from the CORE Registry. J Chemother. 2009;21:414–20.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. Yabuno K, Seki M, Miyawaki K, Miwa Y, Tomono K. High-dose short-interval daptomycin regimen was safe and well tolerated in three patients with chronic renal failure. Clin Pharmacol. 2013;5:161–6.PubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  42. Lai CC, Sheng WH, Wang JT, Cheng A, Chuang YC, Chen YC, Chang SC. Safety and efficacy of high-dose daptomycin as salvage therapy for severe gram-positive bacterial sepsis in hospitalized adult patients. BMC Infect Dis. 2013;13:66.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  43. Kullar R, Davis SL, Levine DP, Zhao JJ, Crank CW, Segreti J, Sakoulas G, Cosgrove SE, Rybak MJ. High-dose daptomycin for treatment of complicated gram-positive infections: a large, multicenter, retrospective study. Pharmacotherapy. 2011;31:527–36.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. Liu C, Bayer A, Cosgrove SE, Daum RS, Fridkin SK, Gorwitz RJ, Kaplan SL, Karchmer AW, Levine DP, Murray BE, Rybak MJ, Talan DA, Chambers HF. Clinical practice guidelines by the Infectious Diseases Society of America for the treatment of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus infections in adults and children: executive summary. Clin Infect Dis. 2011;52:e18–55.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. Lalani T, Boucher HW, Cosgrove SE, Fowler VG, Kanafani ZA, Vigliani GA, Campion M, Abrutyn E, Levine DP, Price CS, Rehm SJ, Corey GR, Karchmer AW, S. aureus Endocarditis and Bacteraemia Study Group. Outcomes with daptomycin versus standard therapy for osteoarticular infections associated with Staphylococcus aureus bacteraemia. J Antimicrob Chemother. 2008;61:177–82.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. Smith JR, Claeys KC, Barber KE, Rybak MJ. High-dose daptomycin therapy for staphylococcal endocarditis and when to apply it. Curr Infect Dis Rep. 2014;16:429.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  47. Kullar R, Casapao AM, Davis SL, Levine DP, Zhao JJ, Crank CW, Segreti J, Sakoulas G, Cosgrove SE, Rybak MJ. A multicentre evaluation of the effectiveness and safety of high-dose daptomycin for the treatment of infective endocarditis. J Antimicrob Chemother. 2013;68:2921–6.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  48. Levine DP, Lamp KC. Daptomycin in the treatment of patients with infective endocarditis: experience from a registry. Am J Med. 2007;120:S28–33.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  49. Dohmen PM, Guleri A, Capone A, Utili R, Seaton A, González-Ramallo VJ, Pathan R, Heep M, Chaves RL. Daptomycin for the treatment of infective endocarditis: results from a European registry. J Antimicrob Chemother. 2013;68:936–42.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  50. Cunha BA, Mickail N, Eisenstein L. E. faecalis vancomycin-sensitive enterococcal bacteremia unresponsive to a vancomycin tolerant strain successfully treated with high-dose daptomycin. Heart Lung. 2007;36:456–61.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  51. Cunha BA, Krol V, Kodali V. Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) mitral valve acute bacterial endocarditis (ABE) in a patient with Job’s syndrome (hyperimmunoglobulin E syndrome) successfully treated with linezolid and high-dose daptomycin. Heart Lung. 2008;37:72–5.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  52. Durante-Mangoni E, Casillo R, Bernardo M, Caianiello C, Mattucci I, Pinto D, Agrusta F, Caprioli R, Albisinni R, Ragone E, Utili R. High-dose daptomycin for cardiac implantable electronic device-related infective endocarditis. Clin Infect Dis. 2012;54:347–54.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  53. Tascini C, Bongiorni MG, Di Cori A, Di Paoulo A, Polidori M, Tagliaferri E, Fondelli S, Soldati E, Ciullo I, Leonildi A, Danesi R, Coluccia G, Menichetti F. Cardiovascular implantable electronic device endocarditis treated with daptomycin with or without transvenous removal. Heart Lung. 2012;41:E24–30.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  54. Cunha BA, Eisenstein LE, Hamid NS. Pacemaker-induced Staphylococcus aureus mitral valve acute bacterial endocarditis complicated by persistent bacteremia from a coronary stent: cure with prolonged/high-dose daptomycin without toxicity. Heart Lung. 2006;35:207–11.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  55. Santo KR, Franceschi V, Campos AC, Monteiro TS, Barbosa GI, Dantas A, Lamas CC. Pacemaker endocarditis caused by Propionibacterium acnes in an adult patient with Ebstein’s anomaly: a report of a rare case. Heart Lung Circ. 2014;23:e222.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  56. Fernández Guerrero ML, Robles I, Nogales Mdel C, Nuevo D. Corynebacterium striatum: an emerging nosocomial drug-resistant endocardial pathogen. J Heart Valve Dis. 2013;22:428–30.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  57. Chen LY, Huang CH, Kuo SC, Hsiao CY, Lin ML, Wang FD, Fung CP. High-dose daptomycin and fosfomycin treatment of a patient with endocarditis caused by daptomycin-nonsusceptible Staphylococcus aureus: case report. BMC Infect Dis. 2011;11:152.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  58. Stewart PS, Davison WM, Steenbergen JN. Daptomycin rapidly penetrates a Staphylococcus epidermidis biofilm. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2009;53:3505–7.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  59. Raad II, Hanna HA, Boktour M, Chaiban G, Hachem RY, Dvorak T, Lewis R, Murray BE. Vancomycin-resistant Enterococcus faecium: catheter colonization, esp gene and decreased susceptibility to antibiotics in biofilm. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2005;49:5046–50.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  60. Raad I, Hanna H, Jiang Y, Dvorak T, Reitzel R, Chaiban G, Sherertz R, Hachem R. Comparative activities of daptomycin, linezolid, and tigecycline against catheter-related methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus bacteremic isolates embedded in biofilm. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2007;51:1656–60.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  61. Beiras-Fernandez A, Kur F, Kiefer S, Sodian R, Schmoeckel M, Weis M, Reichart B, Weis F. Multidrug-resistant gram-positive infections in patients with ventricular assist devices: the role of daptomycin. Transplant Proc. 2009;41:2589–91.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  62. Walter V, Stock UA, Soriano-Romero M, Schnitzbauer A, Moritz A, Beiras-Fernandez A. Eradication of a chronic wound and driveline infection after redo-LVAD implantation. J Cardiothorac Surg. 2014;9:63.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  63. Weis F, Beiras-Fernandez A, Kaczmarek I, Sodian R, Vicol C, Reichart B, Weis M. Daptomycin for eradication of a systemic infection with a methicillin-resistant-Staphylococcus aureus in a biventricular assist device recipient. Ann Thorac Surg. 2007;84:269–70.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  64. Pertel PE, Bernardo P, Fogarty C, Matthews P, Northland R, Benvenuto M, Thorne GM, Luperchio SA, Arbeit RD, Alder J. Effects of prior effective therapy on the efficacy of daptomycin and ceftriaxone for the treatment of community-acquired pneumnonia. Clin Infect Dis. 2008;46:1142–51.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  65. Silverman JA, Mortin LI, Vanpraagh AD, Li T, Alder J. Inhibition of daptomycin by pulmonary surfactant: in vitro modeling and clinical impact. J Infect Dis. 2005;191(12):2149–52.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  66. Mermel LA, Allon M, Bouza E, Craven DE, Flynn P, O’Grady NP, Raad II, Rijnders BJA, Sherertz RJ, Warren DK. Clinical Practice Guidelines for the Diagnosis and Management of Intravascular Catheter-Related Infection: 2009 Update by the Infectious Diseases Society of America. Clin Infect Dis. 2009;49:1–45.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  67. Fowler Jr VG, Boucher HW, Corey GR, Abrutyn E, Karchmer AW, Rupp ME, Levine DP, Chambers HF, Tally FP, Vigliani GA, Cabell CH, Link AS, DeMeyer I, Filler SG, Zervos M, Cook P, Parsonnet J, Bernstein JM, Price CS, Forrest GN, Fätkenheuer G, Gareca M, Rehm SJ, Brodt HR, Tice A, Cosgrove SE, for the S. Aureus Endocarditis and Bacteremia Study Group. Daptomycin versus standard therapy for bacteremia and endocarditis caused by Staphylococcus aureus. N Engl J Med. 2006;355:653–65.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  68. Benvenuto M, Benziger DP, Yankelev S, Vigliani G. Pharmacokinetics and tolerability of daptomycin at doses up to 12 milligrams per kilogram of body weight once daily in healthy volunteers. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2006;50:3245–9.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  69. Abraham G, Finkelberg D, Spooner LM. Daptomycin-induced acute renal and hepatic toxicity without rhabdomyolysis. Ann Pharmacother. 2008;42:719–21.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  70. He W, Zhang Y, Chen H, Zhao C, Wang H. Efficacy and safety of daptomycin for the treatment of infectious disease: a meta-analysis based on randomized controlled trials. J Antimicrob Chemother. 2014;69:3181–9.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  71. Liang SH, Sheng WH, Huang YT, Wu FL, Chang CS. Pharmacokinetics and safety of multiple intravenous doses of daptomycin in a Taiwanese adult population. Chemotherapy. 2009;55:91–6.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  72. Knoll BM, Spieler PJ, Kubiak DW, Marty FM. Neutropenia associated with prolonged daptomycin use. Clin Infect Dis. 2013;56:1353–4.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright

© The Author(s). 2016

Advertisement