Hispana. Acceso en línea al Patrimonio Cultural Digital Español

Está en:  › Datos de registro

A comparison of different antibiotic regimens for the treatment of infective endocarditis.

Identificadores del recurso

1469-493X

http://hdl.handle.net/10641/2317

10.1002/14651858.CD009880.pub3

Procedencia

(Repositorio Institucional de la Universidad Francisco de Vitoria)

Ficha

Título:: A comparison of different antibiotic regimens for the treatment of infective endocarditis.
Tema:: Anti-Bacterial Agents; Endocarditis, Bacterial; Fosfomycin; Imipenem; Levofloxacin; Penicillins; Randomized controlled trials as topic; Vancomycin
Descripción:: Infective endocarditis is a microbial infection of the endocardial surface of the heart. Antibiotics are the cornerstone of treatment, but due to the differences in presentation, populations affected, and the wide variety of micro-organisms that can be responsible, their use is not standardised. This is an update of a review previously published in 2016. Objectives: To assess the existing evidence about the clinical benefits and harms of different antibiotics regimens used to treat people with infective endocarditis. Search methods: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase Classic and Embase, LILACS, CINAHL, and the Conference Proceedings Citation Index - Science on 6 January 2020. We also searched three trials registers and handsearched the reference lists of included papers. We applied no language restrictions. Selection criteria: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) assessing the effects of antibiotic regimens for treating definitive infective endocarditis diagnosed according to modified Duke's criteria. We considered all-cause mortality, cure rates, and adverse events as the primary outcomes. We excluded people with possible infective endocarditis and pregnant women. Data collection and analysis: Two review authors independently performed study selection, 'Risk of bias' assessment, and data extraction in duplicate. We constructed 'Summary of findings' tables and used GRADE methodology to assess the quality of the evidence. We described the included studies narratively. Main results: Six small RCTs involving 1143 allocated/632 analysed participants met the inclusion criteria of this first update. The included trials had a high risk of bias. Three trials were sponsored by drug companies. Due to heterogeneity in outcome definitions and different antibiotics used data could not be pooled. The included trials compared miscellaneous antibiotic schedules having uncertain effects for all of the prespecified outcomes in this review. Evidence was either low or very low quality due to high risk of bias and very low number of events and small sample size. The results for all-cause mortality were as follows: one trial compared quinolone (levofloxacin) plus standard treatment (antistaphylococcal penicillin (cloxacillin or dicloxacillin), aminoglycoside (tobramycin or netilmicin), and rifampicin) versus standard treatment alone and reported 8/31 (26%) with levofloxacin plus standard treatment versus 9/39 (23%) with standard treatment alone; risk ratio (RR) 1.12, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.49 to 2.56. One trial compared fosfomycin plus imipenem 3/4 (75%) versus vancomycin 0/4 (0%) (RR 7.00, 95% CI 0.47 to 103.27), and one trial compared partial oral treatment 7/201 (3.5%) versus conventional intravenous treatment 13/199 (6.53%) (RR 0.53, 95% CI 0.22 to 1.31). The results for rates of cure with or without surgery were as follows: one trial compared daptomycin versus low-dose gentamicin plus an antistaphylococcal penicillin (nafcillin, oxacillin, or flucloxacillin) or vancomycin and reported 9/28 (32.1%) with daptomycin versus 9/25 (36%) with low-dose gentamicin plus antistaphylococcal penicillin or vancomycin; RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.42 to 1.89. One trial compared glycopeptide (vancomycin or teicoplanin) plus gentamicin with cloxacillin plus gentamicin (13/23 (56%) versus 11/11 (100%); RR 0.59, 95% CI 0.40 to 0.85). One trial compared ceftriaxone plus gentamicin versus ceftriaxone alone (15/34 (44%) versus 21/33 (64%); RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.44 to 1.10), and one trial compared fosfomycin plus imipenem versus vancomycin (1/4 (25%) versus 2/4 (50%); RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.07 to 3.55). The included trials reported adverse events, the need for cardiac surgical interventions, and rates of uncontrolled infection, congestive heart failure, relapse of endocarditis, and septic emboli, and found no conclusive differences between groups (very low-quality evidence). No trials assessed quality of life. Authors' conclusions: This first update confirms the findings of the original version of the review. Limited and low to very low-quality evidence suggests that the comparative effects of different antibiotic regimens in terms of cure rates or other relevant clinical outcomes are uncertain. The conclusions of this updated Cochrane Review were based on few RCTs with a high risk of bias. Accordingly, current evidence does not support or reject any regimen of antibiotic therapy for the treatment of infective endocarditis.; post-print; 876 KB
Idioma:: English
Relación:: https://www.cochranelibrary.com/cdsr/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD009880.pub3/full
Autor/Productor:: Martí-Carvajal, A.J.; Dayer, M.; Conterno, L.O.; González Garay, A.G.; Martí-Amarista, C.E.
Editor:: Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews
Derechos:: Atribución-NoComercial-SinDerivadas 3.0 España; http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/es/; openAccess
Fecha:: 2021-06-15T09:38:04Z; 2020
Tipo de recurso:: article

oai_dc

Descargar XML

<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" ?>

<oai_dc:dc schemaLocation="http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/2.0/oai_dc/ http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/2.0/oai_dc.xsd">
1. <dc:title>A comparison of different antibiotic regimens for the treatment of infective endocarditis.</dc:title>
2. <dc:creator>Martí-Carvajal, A.J.</dc:creator>
3. <dc:creator>Dayer, M.</dc:creator>
4. <dc:creator>Conterno, L.O.</dc:creator>
5. <dc:creator>González Garay, A.G.</dc:creator>
6. <dc:creator>Martí-Amarista, C.E.</dc:creator>
7. <dc:subject>Anti-Bacterial Agents</dc:subject>
8. <dc:subject>Endocarditis, Bacterial</dc:subject>
9. <dc:subject>Fosfomycin</dc:subject>
10. <dc:subject>Imipenem</dc:subject>
11. <dc:subject>Levofloxacin</dc:subject>
12. <dc:subject>Penicillins</dc:subject>
13. <dc:subject>Randomized controlled trials as topic</dc:subject>
14. <dc:subject>Vancomycin</dc:subject>
15. <dc:description>Infective endocarditis is a microbial infection of the endocardial surface of the heart. Antibiotics are the cornerstone of treatment, but due to the differences in presentation, populations affected, and the wide variety of micro-organisms that can be responsible, their use is not standardised. This is an update of a review previously published in 2016. Objectives: To assess the existing evidence about the clinical benefits and harms of different antibiotics regimens used to treat people with infective endocarditis. Search methods: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase Classic and Embase, LILACS, CINAHL, and the Conference Proceedings Citation Index - Science on 6 January 2020. We also searched three trials registers and handsearched the reference lists of included papers. We applied no language restrictions. Selection criteria: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) assessing the effects of antibiotic regimens for treating definitive infective endocarditis diagnosed according to modified Duke's criteria. We considered all-cause mortality, cure rates, and adverse events as the primary outcomes. We excluded people with possible infective endocarditis and pregnant women. Data collection and analysis: Two review authors independently performed study selection, 'Risk of bias' assessment, and data extraction in duplicate. We constructed 'Summary of findings' tables and used GRADE methodology to assess the quality of the evidence. We described the included studies narratively. Main results: Six small RCTs involving 1143 allocated/632 analysed participants met the inclusion criteria of this first update. The included trials had a high risk of bias. Three trials were sponsored by drug companies. Due to heterogeneity in outcome definitions and different antibiotics used data could not be pooled. The included trials compared miscellaneous antibiotic schedules having uncertain effects for all of the prespecified outcomes in this review. Evidence was either low or very low quality due to high risk of bias and very low number of events and small sample size. The results for all-cause mortality were as follows: one trial compared quinolone (levofloxacin) plus standard treatment (antistaphylococcal penicillin (cloxacillin or dicloxacillin), aminoglycoside (tobramycin or netilmicin), and rifampicin) versus standard treatment alone and reported 8/31 (26%) with levofloxacin plus standard treatment versus 9/39 (23%) with standard treatment alone; risk ratio (RR) 1.12, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.49 to 2.56. One trial compared fosfomycin plus imipenem 3/4 (75%) versus vancomycin 0/4 (0%) (RR 7.00, 95% CI 0.47 to 103.27), and one trial compared partial oral treatment 7/201 (3.5%) versus conventional intravenous treatment 13/199 (6.53%) (RR 0.53, 95% CI 0.22 to 1.31). The results for rates of cure with or without surgery were as follows: one trial compared daptomycin versus low-dose gentamicin plus an antistaphylococcal penicillin (nafcillin, oxacillin, or flucloxacillin) or vancomycin and reported 9/28 (32.1%) with daptomycin versus 9/25 (36%) with low-dose gentamicin plus antistaphylococcal penicillin or vancomycin; RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.42 to 1.89. One trial compared glycopeptide (vancomycin or teicoplanin) plus gentamicin with cloxacillin plus gentamicin (13/23 (56%) versus 11/11 (100%); RR 0.59, 95% CI 0.40 to 0.85). One trial compared ceftriaxone plus gentamicin versus ceftriaxone alone (15/34 (44%) versus 21/33 (64%); RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.44 to 1.10), and one trial compared fosfomycin plus imipenem versus vancomycin (1/4 (25%) versus 2/4 (50%); RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.07 to 3.55). The included trials reported adverse events, the need for cardiac surgical interventions, and rates of uncontrolled infection, congestive heart failure, relapse of endocarditis, and septic emboli, and found no conclusive differences between groups (very low-quality evidence). No trials assessed quality of life. Authors' conclusions: This first update confirms the findings of the original version of the review. Limited and low to very low-quality evidence suggests that the comparative effects of different antibiotic regimens in terms of cure rates or other relevant clinical outcomes are uncertain. The conclusions of this updated Cochrane Review were based on few RCTs with a high risk of bias. Accordingly, current evidence does not support or reject any regimen of antibiotic therapy for the treatment of infective endocarditis.</dc:description>
16. <dc:description>post-print</dc:description>
17. <dc:description>876 KB</dc:description>
18. <dc:date>2021-06-15T09:38:04Z</dc:date>
19. <dc:date>2021-06-15T09:38:04Z</dc:date>
20. <dc:date>2020</dc:date>
21. <dc:type>article</dc:type>
22. <dc:identifier>1469-493X</dc:identifier>
23. <dc:identifier>http://hdl.handle.net/10641/2317</dc:identifier>
24. <dc:identifier>10.1002/14651858.CD009880.pub3</dc:identifier>
25. <dc:language>eng</dc:language>
26. <dc:relation>https://www.cochranelibrary.com/cdsr/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD009880.pub3/full</dc:relation>
27. <dc:rights>Atribución-NoComercial-SinDerivadas 3.0 España</dc:rights>
28. <dc:rights>http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/es/</dc:rights>
29. <dc:rights>openAccess</dc:rights>
30. <dc:publisher>Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews</dc:publisher>
</oai_dc:dc>

didl

Descargar XML

<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" ?>

<d:DIDL schemaLocation="urn:mpeg:mpeg21:2002:02-DIDL-NS http://standards.iso.org/ittf/PubliclyAvailableStandards/MPEG-21_schema_files/did/didl.xsd">
1. <d:DIDLInfo>
  1. <dcterms:created schemaLocation="http://purl.org/dc/terms/ http://dublincore.org/schemas/xmls/qdc/dcterms.xsd">2021-06-15T09:38:04Z</dcterms:created>
  </d:DIDLInfo>
2. <d:Item id="hdl_10641_2317">
  1. <d:Descriptor>
    1. <d:Statement mimeType="application/xml; charset=utf-8">
      1. <dii:Identifier schemaLocation="urn:mpeg:mpeg21:2002:01-DII-NS http://standards.iso.org/ittf/PubliclyAvailableStandards/MPEG-21_schema_files/dii/dii.xsd">urn:hdl:10641/2317</dii:Identifier>
      </d:Statement>
    </d:Descriptor>
  2. <d:Descriptor>
    1. <d:Statement mimeType="application/xml; charset=utf-8">
      1. <oai_dc:dc schemaLocation="http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/2.0/oai_dc/ http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/2.0/oai_dc.xsd">
        <dc:title>A comparison of different antibiotic regimens for the treatment of infective endocarditis.</dc:title>
        <dc:creator>Martí-Carvajal, A.J.</dc:creator>
        <dc:creator>Dayer, M.</dc:creator>
        <dc:creator>Conterno, L.O.</dc:creator>
        <dc:creator>González Garay, A.G.</dc:creator>
        <dc:creator>Martí-Amarista, C.E.</dc:creator>
        <dc:subject>Anti-Bacterial Agents</dc:subject>
        <dc:subject>Endocarditis, Bacterial</dc:subject>
        <dc:subject>Fosfomycin</dc:subject>
        <dc:subject>Imipenem</dc:subject>
        <dc:subject>Levofloxacin</dc:subject>
        <dc:subject>Penicillins</dc:subject>
        <dc:subject>Randomized controlled trials as topic</dc:subject>
        <dc:subject>Vancomycin</dc:subject>
        <dc:description>Infective endocarditis is a microbial infection of the endocardial surface of the heart. Antibiotics are the cornerstone of treatment, but due to the differences in presentation, populations affected, and the wide variety of micro-organisms that can be responsible, their use is not standardised. This is an update of a review previously published in 2016. Objectives: To assess the existing evidence about the clinical benefits and harms of different antibiotics regimens used to treat people with infective endocarditis. Search methods: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase Classic and Embase, LILACS, CINAHL, and the Conference Proceedings Citation Index - Science on 6 January 2020. We also searched three trials registers and handsearched the reference lists of included papers. We applied no language restrictions. Selection criteria: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) assessing the effects of antibiotic regimens for treating definitive infective endocarditis diagnosed according to modified Duke's criteria. We considered all-cause mortality, cure rates, and adverse events as the primary outcomes. We excluded people with possible infective endocarditis and pregnant women. Data collection and analysis: Two review authors independently performed study selection, 'Risk of bias' assessment, and data extraction in duplicate. We constructed 'Summary of findings' tables and used GRADE methodology to assess the quality of the evidence. We described the included studies narratively. Main results: Six small RCTs involving 1143 allocated/632 analysed participants met the inclusion criteria of this first update. The included trials had a high risk of bias. Three trials were sponsored by drug companies. Due to heterogeneity in outcome definitions and different antibiotics used data could not be pooled. The included trials compared miscellaneous antibiotic schedules having uncertain effects for all of the prespecified outcomes in this review. Evidence was either low or very low quality due to high risk of bias and very low number of events and small sample size. The results for all-cause mortality were as follows: one trial compared quinolone (levofloxacin) plus standard treatment (antistaphylococcal penicillin (cloxacillin or dicloxacillin), aminoglycoside (tobramycin or netilmicin), and rifampicin) versus standard treatment alone and reported 8/31 (26%) with levofloxacin plus standard treatment versus 9/39 (23%) with standard treatment alone; risk ratio (RR) 1.12, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.49 to 2.56. One trial compared fosfomycin plus imipenem 3/4 (75%) versus vancomycin 0/4 (0%) (RR 7.00, 95% CI 0.47 to 103.27), and one trial compared partial oral treatment 7/201 (3.5%) versus conventional intravenous treatment 13/199 (6.53%) (RR 0.53, 95% CI 0.22 to 1.31). The results for rates of cure with or without surgery were as follows: one trial compared daptomycin versus low-dose gentamicin plus an antistaphylococcal penicillin (nafcillin, oxacillin, or flucloxacillin) or vancomycin and reported 9/28 (32.1%) with daptomycin versus 9/25 (36%) with low-dose gentamicin plus antistaphylococcal penicillin or vancomycin; RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.42 to 1.89. One trial compared glycopeptide (vancomycin or teicoplanin) plus gentamicin with cloxacillin plus gentamicin (13/23 (56%) versus 11/11 (100%); RR 0.59, 95% CI 0.40 to 0.85). One trial compared ceftriaxone plus gentamicin versus ceftriaxone alone (15/34 (44%) versus 21/33 (64%); RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.44 to 1.10), and one trial compared fosfomycin plus imipenem versus vancomycin (1/4 (25%) versus 2/4 (50%); RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.07 to 3.55). The included trials reported adverse events, the need for cardiac surgical interventions, and rates of uncontrolled infection, congestive heart failure, relapse of endocarditis, and septic emboli, and found no conclusive differences between groups (very low-quality evidence). No trials assessed quality of life. Authors' conclusions: This first update confirms the findings of the original version of the review. Limited and low to very low-quality evidence suggests that the comparative effects of different antibiotic regimens in terms of cure rates or other relevant clinical outcomes are uncertain. The conclusions of this updated Cochrane Review were based on few RCTs with a high risk of bias. Accordingly, current evidence does not support or reject any regimen of antibiotic therapy for the treatment of infective endocarditis.</dc:description>
        <dc:date>2021-06-15T09:38:04Z</dc:date>
        <dc:date>2021-06-15T09:38:04Z</dc:date>
        <dc:date>2020</dc:date>
        <dc:type>article</dc:type>
        <dc:identifier>1469-493X</dc:identifier>
        <dc:identifier>http://hdl.handle.net/10641/2317</dc:identifier>
        <dc:identifier>10.1002/14651858.CD009880.pub3</dc:identifier>
        <dc:language>eng</dc:language>
        <dc:relation>https://www.cochranelibrary.com/cdsr/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD009880.pub3/full</dc:relation>
        <dc:rights>http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/es/</dc:rights>
        <dc:rights>openAccess</dc:rights>
        <dc:rights>Atribución-NoComercial-SinDerivadas 3.0 España</dc:rights>
        <dc:publisher>Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews</dc:publisher>
        </oai_dc:dc>
      </d:Statement>
    </d:Descriptor>
  3. <d:Component id="10641_2317_1">
    1. <d:Resource mimeType="application/pdf" ref="http://ddfv.ufv.es/bitstream/10641/2317/1/CD009880.pdf" />
    </d:Component>
  </d:Item>
</d:DIDL>

dim

Descargar XML

<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" ?>

<dim:dim schemaLocation="http://www.dspace.org/xmlns/dspace/dim http://www.dspace.org/schema/dim.xsd">
1. <dim:field authority="362f880d-ca5c-49ce-8b98-7dc4544d4b7b" confidence="600" element="contributor" mdschema="dc" qualifier="author">Martí-Carvajal, A.J.</dim:field>
2. <dim:field authority="01e7d8b3-3485-4d56-9d4d-d73c5aefa122" confidence="600" element="contributor" mdschema="dc" qualifier="author">Dayer, M.</dim:field>
3. <dim:field authority="c022ca96-fd2a-41b5-9504-a27c23d4c3b4" confidence="600" element="contributor" mdschema="dc" qualifier="author">Conterno, L.O.</dim:field>
4. <dim:field authority="2fd4f76d-eccd-4bd8-b41b-3960e91bbbd9" confidence="600" element="contributor" mdschema="dc" qualifier="author">González Garay, A.G.</dim:field>
5. <dim:field authority="138dbb39-0cc8-488c-a3b7-16b5dd832685" confidence="600" element="contributor" mdschema="dc" qualifier="author">Martí-Amarista, C.E.</dim:field>
6. <dim:field element="date" mdschema="dc" qualifier="accessioned">2021-06-15T09:38:04Z</dim:field>
7. <dim:field element="date" mdschema="dc" qualifier="available">2021-06-15T09:38:04Z</dim:field>
8. <dim:field element="date" mdschema="dc" qualifier="issued">2020</dim:field>
9. <dim:field element="identifier" lang="spa" mdschema="dc" qualifier="issn">1469-493X</dim:field>
10. <dim:field element="identifier" mdschema="dc" qualifier="uri">http://hdl.handle.net/10641/2317</dim:field>
11. <dim:field element="identifier" lang="spa" mdschema="dc" qualifier="doi">10.1002/14651858.CD009880.pub3</dim:field>
12. <dim:field element="description" lang="spa" mdschema="dc" qualifier="abstract">Infective endocarditis is a microbial infection of the endocardial surface of the heart. Antibiotics are the cornerstone of treatment, but due to the differences in presentation, populations affected, and the wide variety of micro-organisms that can be responsible, their use is not standardised. This is an update of a review previously published in 2016. Objectives: To assess the existing evidence about the clinical benefits and harms of different antibiotics regimens used to treat people with infective endocarditis. Search methods: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase Classic and Embase, LILACS, CINAHL, and the Conference Proceedings Citation Index - Science on 6 January 2020. We also searched three trials registers and handsearched the reference lists of included papers. We applied no language restrictions. Selection criteria: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) assessing the effects of antibiotic regimens for treating definitive infective endocarditis diagnosed according to modified Duke's criteria. We considered all-cause mortality, cure rates, and adverse events as the primary outcomes. We excluded people with possible infective endocarditis and pregnant women. Data collection and analysis: Two review authors independently performed study selection, 'Risk of bias' assessment, and data extraction in duplicate. We constructed 'Summary of findings' tables and used GRADE methodology to assess the quality of the evidence. We described the included studies narratively. Main results: Six small RCTs involving 1143 allocated/632 analysed participants met the inclusion criteria of this first update. The included trials had a high risk of bias. Three trials were sponsored by drug companies. Due to heterogeneity in outcome definitions and different antibiotics used data could not be pooled. The included trials compared miscellaneous antibiotic schedules having uncertain effects for all of the prespecified outcomes in this review. Evidence was either low or very low quality due to high risk of bias and very low number of events and small sample size. The results for all-cause mortality were as follows: one trial compared quinolone (levofloxacin) plus standard treatment (antistaphylococcal penicillin (cloxacillin or dicloxacillin), aminoglycoside (tobramycin or netilmicin), and rifampicin) versus standard treatment alone and reported 8/31 (26%) with levofloxacin plus standard treatment versus 9/39 (23%) with standard treatment alone; risk ratio (RR) 1.12, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.49 to 2.56. One trial compared fosfomycin plus imipenem 3/4 (75%) versus vancomycin 0/4 (0%) (RR 7.00, 95% CI 0.47 to 103.27), and one trial compared partial oral treatment 7/201 (3.5%) versus conventional intravenous treatment 13/199 (6.53%) (RR 0.53, 95% CI 0.22 to 1.31). The results for rates of cure with or without surgery were as follows: one trial compared daptomycin versus low-dose gentamicin plus an antistaphylococcal penicillin (nafcillin, oxacillin, or flucloxacillin) or vancomycin and reported 9/28 (32.1%) with daptomycin versus 9/25 (36%) with low-dose gentamicin plus antistaphylococcal penicillin or vancomycin; RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.42 to 1.89. One trial compared glycopeptide (vancomycin or teicoplanin) plus gentamicin with cloxacillin plus gentamicin (13/23 (56%) versus 11/11 (100%); RR 0.59, 95% CI 0.40 to 0.85). One trial compared ceftriaxone plus gentamicin versus ceftriaxone alone (15/34 (44%) versus 21/33 (64%); RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.44 to 1.10), and one trial compared fosfomycin plus imipenem versus vancomycin (1/4 (25%) versus 2/4 (50%); RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.07 to 3.55). The included trials reported adverse events, the need for cardiac surgical interventions, and rates of uncontrolled infection, congestive heart failure, relapse of endocarditis, and septic emboli, and found no conclusive differences between groups (very low-quality evidence). No trials assessed quality of life. Authors' conclusions: This first update confirms the findings of the original version of the review. Limited and low to very low-quality evidence suggests that the comparative effects of different antibiotic regimens in terms of cure rates or other relevant clinical outcomes are uncertain. The conclusions of this updated Cochrane Review were based on few RCTs with a high risk of bias. Accordingly, current evidence does not support or reject any regimen of antibiotic therapy for the treatment of infective endocarditis.</dim:field>
13. <dim:field element="description" lang="spa" mdschema="dc" qualifier="version">post-print</dim:field>
14. <dim:field element="description" lang="spa" mdschema="dc" qualifier="extent">876 KB</dim:field>
15. <dim:field element="language" lang="spa" mdschema="dc" qualifier="iso">eng</dim:field>
16. <dim:field element="publisher" lang="spa" mdschema="dc">Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews</dim:field>
17. <dim:field element="rights" lang="*" mdschema="dc">Atribución-NoComercial-SinDerivadas 3.0 España</dim:field>
18. <dim:field element="rights" lang="*" mdschema="dc" qualifier="uri">http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/es/</dim:field>
19. <dim:field element="rights" lang="spa" mdschema="dc" qualifier="accessRights">openAccess</dim:field>
20. <dim:field element="subject" lang="spa" mdschema="dc">Anti-Bacterial Agents</dim:field>
21. <dim:field element="subject" lang="spa" mdschema="dc">Endocarditis, Bacterial</dim:field>
22. <dim:field element="subject" lang="spa" mdschema="dc">Fosfomycin</dim:field>
23. <dim:field element="subject" lang="spa" mdschema="dc">Imipenem</dim:field>
24. <dim:field element="subject" lang="spa" mdschema="dc">Levofloxacin</dim:field>
25. <dim:field element="subject" lang="spa" mdschema="dc">Penicillins</dim:field>
26. <dim:field element="subject" lang="spa" mdschema="dc">Randomized controlled trials as topic</dim:field>
27. <dim:field element="subject" lang="spa" mdschema="dc">Vancomycin</dim:field>
28. <dim:field element="title" lang="spa" mdschema="dc">A comparison of different antibiotic regimens for the treatment of infective endocarditis.</dim:field>
29. <dim:field element="type" lang="spa" mdschema="dc">article</dim:field>
30. <dim:field element="relation" lang="spa" mdschema="dc" qualifier="publisherversion">https://www.cochranelibrary.com/cdsr/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD009880.pub3/full</dim:field>
</dim:dim>

etdms

Descargar XML

<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" ?>

<thesis schemaLocation="http://www.ndltd.org/standards/metadata/etdms/1.0/ http://www.ndltd.org/standards/metadata/etdms/1.0/etdms.xsd">
1. <title>A comparison of different antibiotic regimens for the treatment of infective endocarditis.</title>
2. <creator>Martí-Carvajal, A.J.</creator>
3. <creator>Dayer, M.</creator>
4. <creator>Conterno, L.O.</creator>
5. <creator>González Garay, A.G.</creator>
6. <creator>Martí-Amarista, C.E.</creator>
7. <subject>Anti-Bacterial Agents</subject>
8. <subject>Endocarditis, Bacterial</subject>
9. <subject>Fosfomycin</subject>
10. <subject>Imipenem</subject>
11. <subject>Levofloxacin</subject>
12. <subject>Penicillins</subject>
13. <subject>Randomized controlled trials as topic</subject>
14. <subject>Vancomycin</subject>
15. <description>Infective endocarditis is a microbial infection of the endocardial surface of the heart. Antibiotics are the cornerstone of treatment, but due to the differences in presentation, populations affected, and the wide variety of micro-organisms that can be responsible, their use is not standardised. This is an update of a review previously published in 2016. Objectives: To assess the existing evidence about the clinical benefits and harms of different antibiotics regimens used to treat people with infective endocarditis. Search methods: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase Classic and Embase, LILACS, CINAHL, and the Conference Proceedings Citation Index - Science on 6 January 2020. We also searched three trials registers and handsearched the reference lists of included papers. We applied no language restrictions. Selection criteria: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) assessing the effects of antibiotic regimens for treating definitive infective endocarditis diagnosed according to modified Duke's criteria. We considered all-cause mortality, cure rates, and adverse events as the primary outcomes. We excluded people with possible infective endocarditis and pregnant women. Data collection and analysis: Two review authors independently performed study selection, 'Risk of bias' assessment, and data extraction in duplicate. We constructed 'Summary of findings' tables and used GRADE methodology to assess the quality of the evidence. We described the included studies narratively. Main results: Six small RCTs involving 1143 allocated/632 analysed participants met the inclusion criteria of this first update. The included trials had a high risk of bias. Three trials were sponsored by drug companies. Due to heterogeneity in outcome definitions and different antibiotics used data could not be pooled. The included trials compared miscellaneous antibiotic schedules having uncertain effects for all of the prespecified outcomes in this review. Evidence was either low or very low quality due to high risk of bias and very low number of events and small sample size. The results for all-cause mortality were as follows: one trial compared quinolone (levofloxacin) plus standard treatment (antistaphylococcal penicillin (cloxacillin or dicloxacillin), aminoglycoside (tobramycin or netilmicin), and rifampicin) versus standard treatment alone and reported 8/31 (26%) with levofloxacin plus standard treatment versus 9/39 (23%) with standard treatment alone; risk ratio (RR) 1.12, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.49 to 2.56. One trial compared fosfomycin plus imipenem 3/4 (75%) versus vancomycin 0/4 (0%) (RR 7.00, 95% CI 0.47 to 103.27), and one trial compared partial oral treatment 7/201 (3.5%) versus conventional intravenous treatment 13/199 (6.53%) (RR 0.53, 95% CI 0.22 to 1.31). The results for rates of cure with or without surgery were as follows: one trial compared daptomycin versus low-dose gentamicin plus an antistaphylococcal penicillin (nafcillin, oxacillin, or flucloxacillin) or vancomycin and reported 9/28 (32.1%) with daptomycin versus 9/25 (36%) with low-dose gentamicin plus antistaphylococcal penicillin or vancomycin; RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.42 to 1.89. One trial compared glycopeptide (vancomycin or teicoplanin) plus gentamicin with cloxacillin plus gentamicin (13/23 (56%) versus 11/11 (100%); RR 0.59, 95% CI 0.40 to 0.85). One trial compared ceftriaxone plus gentamicin versus ceftriaxone alone (15/34 (44%) versus 21/33 (64%); RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.44 to 1.10), and one trial compared fosfomycin plus imipenem versus vancomycin (1/4 (25%) versus 2/4 (50%); RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.07 to 3.55). The included trials reported adverse events, the need for cardiac surgical interventions, and rates of uncontrolled infection, congestive heart failure, relapse of endocarditis, and septic emboli, and found no conclusive differences between groups (very low-quality evidence). No trials assessed quality of life. Authors' conclusions: This first update confirms the findings of the original version of the review. Limited and low to very low-quality evidence suggests that the comparative effects of different antibiotic regimens in terms of cure rates or other relevant clinical outcomes are uncertain. The conclusions of this updated Cochrane Review were based on few RCTs with a high risk of bias. Accordingly, current evidence does not support or reject any regimen of antibiotic therapy for the treatment of infective endocarditis.</description>
16. <date>2021-06-15</date>
17. <date>2021-06-15</date>
18. <date>2020</date>
19. <type>article</type>
20. <identifier>1469-493X</identifier>
21. <identifier>http://hdl.handle.net/10641/2317</identifier>
22. <identifier>10.1002/14651858.CD009880.pub3</identifier>
23. <language>eng</language>
24. <relation>https://www.cochranelibrary.com/cdsr/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD009880.pub3/full</relation>
25. <rights>http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/es/</rights>
26. <rights>openAccess</rights>
27. <rights>Atribución-NoComercial-SinDerivadas 3.0 España</rights>
28. <publisher>Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews</publisher>
</thesis>

marc

Descargar XML

<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" ?>

<record schemaLocation="http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim http://www.loc.gov/standards/marcxml/schema/MARC21slim.xsd">
1. <leader>00925njm 22002777a 4500</leader>
2. <datafield ind1=" " ind2=" " tag="042">
  1. <subfield code="a">dc</subfield>
  </datafield>
3. <datafield ind1=" " ind2=" " tag="720">
  1. <subfield code="a">Martí-Carvajal, A.J.</subfield>
  2. <subfield code="e">author</subfield>
  </datafield>
4. <datafield ind1=" " ind2=" " tag="720">
  1. <subfield code="a">Dayer, M.</subfield>
  2. <subfield code="e">author</subfield>
  </datafield>
5. <datafield ind1=" " ind2=" " tag="720">
  1. <subfield code="a">Conterno, L.O.</subfield>
  2. <subfield code="e">author</subfield>
  </datafield>
6. <datafield ind1=" " ind2=" " tag="720">
  1. <subfield code="a">González Garay, A.G.</subfield>
  2. <subfield code="e">author</subfield>
  </datafield>
7. <datafield ind1=" " ind2=" " tag="720">
  1. <subfield code="a">Martí-Amarista, C.E.</subfield>
  2. <subfield code="e">author</subfield>
  </datafield>
8. <datafield ind1=" " ind2=" " tag="260">
  1. <subfield code="c">2020</subfield>
  </datafield>
9. <datafield ind1=" " ind2=" " tag="520">
  1. <subfield code="a">Infective endocarditis is a microbial infection of the endocardial surface of the heart. Antibiotics are the cornerstone of treatment, but due to the differences in presentation, populations affected, and the wide variety of micro-organisms that can be responsible, their use is not standardised. This is an update of a review previously published in 2016. Objectives: To assess the existing evidence about the clinical benefits and harms of different antibiotics regimens used to treat people with infective endocarditis. Search methods: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase Classic and Embase, LILACS, CINAHL, and the Conference Proceedings Citation Index - Science on 6 January 2020. We also searched three trials registers and handsearched the reference lists of included papers. We applied no language restrictions. Selection criteria: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) assessing the effects of antibiotic regimens for treating definitive infective endocarditis diagnosed according to modified Duke's criteria. We considered all-cause mortality, cure rates, and adverse events as the primary outcomes. We excluded people with possible infective endocarditis and pregnant women. Data collection and analysis: Two review authors independently performed study selection, 'Risk of bias' assessment, and data extraction in duplicate. We constructed 'Summary of findings' tables and used GRADE methodology to assess the quality of the evidence. We described the included studies narratively. Main results: Six small RCTs involving 1143 allocated/632 analysed participants met the inclusion criteria of this first update. The included trials had a high risk of bias. Three trials were sponsored by drug companies. Due to heterogeneity in outcome definitions and different antibiotics used data could not be pooled. The included trials compared miscellaneous antibiotic schedules having uncertain effects for all of the prespecified outcomes in this review. Evidence was either low or very low quality due to high risk of bias and very low number of events and small sample size. The results for all-cause mortality were as follows: one trial compared quinolone (levofloxacin) plus standard treatment (antistaphylococcal penicillin (cloxacillin or dicloxacillin), aminoglycoside (tobramycin or netilmicin), and rifampicin) versus standard treatment alone and reported 8/31 (26%) with levofloxacin plus standard treatment versus 9/39 (23%) with standard treatment alone; risk ratio (RR) 1.12, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.49 to 2.56. One trial compared fosfomycin plus imipenem 3/4 (75%) versus vancomycin 0/4 (0%) (RR 7.00, 95% CI 0.47 to 103.27), and one trial compared partial oral treatment 7/201 (3.5%) versus conventional intravenous treatment 13/199 (6.53%) (RR 0.53, 95% CI 0.22 to 1.31). The results for rates of cure with or without surgery were as follows: one trial compared daptomycin versus low-dose gentamicin plus an antistaphylococcal penicillin (nafcillin, oxacillin, or flucloxacillin) or vancomycin and reported 9/28 (32.1%) with daptomycin versus 9/25 (36%) with low-dose gentamicin plus antistaphylococcal penicillin or vancomycin; RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.42 to 1.89. One trial compared glycopeptide (vancomycin or teicoplanin) plus gentamicin with cloxacillin plus gentamicin (13/23 (56%) versus 11/11 (100%); RR 0.59, 95% CI 0.40 to 0.85). One trial compared ceftriaxone plus gentamicin versus ceftriaxone alone (15/34 (44%) versus 21/33 (64%); RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.44 to 1.10), and one trial compared fosfomycin plus imipenem versus vancomycin (1/4 (25%) versus 2/4 (50%); RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.07 to 3.55). The included trials reported adverse events, the need for cardiac surgical interventions, and rates of uncontrolled infection, congestive heart failure, relapse of endocarditis, and septic emboli, and found no conclusive differences between groups (very low-quality evidence). No trials assessed quality of life. Authors' conclusions: This first update confirms the findings of the original version of the review. Limited and low to very low-quality evidence suggests that the comparative effects of different antibiotic regimens in terms of cure rates or other relevant clinical outcomes are uncertain. The conclusions of this updated Cochrane Review were based on few RCTs with a high risk of bias. Accordingly, current evidence does not support or reject any regimen of antibiotic therapy for the treatment of infective endocarditis.</subfield>
  </datafield>
10. <datafield ind1="8" ind2=" " tag="024">
  1. <subfield code="a">1469-493X</subfield>
  </datafield>
11. <datafield ind1="8" ind2=" " tag="024">
  1. <subfield code="a">http://hdl.handle.net/10641/2317</subfield>
  </datafield>
12. <datafield ind1="8" ind2=" " tag="024">
  1. <subfield code="a">10.1002/14651858.CD009880.pub3</subfield>
  </datafield>
13. <datafield ind1=" " ind2=" " tag="653">
  1. <subfield code="a">Anti-Bacterial Agents</subfield>
  </datafield>
14. <datafield ind1=" " ind2=" " tag="653">
  1. <subfield code="a">Endocarditis, Bacterial</subfield>
  </datafield>
15. <datafield ind1=" " ind2=" " tag="653">
  1. <subfield code="a">Fosfomycin</subfield>
  </datafield>
16. <datafield ind1=" " ind2=" " tag="653">
  1. <subfield code="a">Imipenem</subfield>
  </datafield>
17. <datafield ind1=" " ind2=" " tag="653">
  1. <subfield code="a">Levofloxacin</subfield>
  </datafield>
18. <datafield ind1=" " ind2=" " tag="653">
  1. <subfield code="a">Penicillins</subfield>
  </datafield>
19. <datafield ind1=" " ind2=" " tag="653">
  1. <subfield code="a">Randomized controlled trials as topic</subfield>
  </datafield>
20. <datafield ind1=" " ind2=" " tag="653">
  1. <subfield code="a">Vancomycin</subfield>
  </datafield>
21. <datafield ind1="0" ind2="0" tag="245">
  1. <subfield code="a">A comparison of different antibiotic regimens for the treatment of infective endocarditis.</subfield>
  </datafield>
</record>

mets

Descargar XML

<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" ?>

<mets ID=" DSpace_ITEM_10641-2317" OBJID=" hdl:10641/2317" PROFILE="DSpace METS SIP Profile 1.0" TYPE="DSpace ITEM" schemaLocation="http://www.loc.gov/METS/ http://www.loc.gov/standards/mets/mets.xsd">
1. <metsHdr CREATEDATE="2022-08-28T09:53:21Z">
  1. <agent ROLE="CUSTODIAN" TYPE="ORGANIZATION">
    1. <name>DDFV</name>
    </agent>
  </metsHdr>
2. <dmdSec ID="DMD_10641_2317">
  1. <mdWrap MDTYPE="MODS">
    1. <xmlData schemaLocation="http://www.loc.gov/mods/v3 http://www.loc.gov/standards/mods/v3/mods-3-1.xsd">
      1. <mods:mods schemaLocation="http://www.loc.gov/mods/v3 http://www.loc.gov/standards/mods/v3/mods-3-1.xsd">
        <mods:name>
        <mods:role>
        <mods:roleTerm type="text">author</mods:roleTerm>
        </mods:role>
        <mods:namePart>Martí-Carvajal, A.J.</mods:namePart>
        </mods:name>
        <mods:name>
        <mods:role>
        <mods:roleTerm type="text">author</mods:roleTerm>
        </mods:role>
        <mods:namePart>Dayer, M.</mods:namePart>
        </mods:name>
        <mods:name>
        <mods:role>
        <mods:roleTerm type="text">author</mods:roleTerm>
        </mods:role>
        <mods:namePart>Conterno, L.O.</mods:namePart>
        </mods:name>
        <mods:name>
        <mods:role>
        <mods:roleTerm type="text">author</mods:roleTerm>
        </mods:role>
        <mods:namePart>González Garay, A.G.</mods:namePart>
        </mods:name>
        <mods:name>
        <mods:role>
        <mods:roleTerm type="text">author</mods:roleTerm>
        </mods:role>
        <mods:namePart>Martí-Amarista, C.E.</mods:namePart>
        </mods:name>
        <mods:extension>
        <mods:dateAccessioned encoding="iso8601">2021-06-15T09:38:04Z</mods:dateAccessioned>
        </mods:extension>
        <mods:extension>
        <mods:dateAvailable encoding="iso8601">2021-06-15T09:38:04Z</mods:dateAvailable>
        </mods:extension>
        <mods:originInfo>
        <mods:dateIssued encoding="iso8601">2020</mods:dateIssued>
        </mods:originInfo>
        <mods:identifier type="issn">1469-493X</mods:identifier>
        <mods:identifier type="uri">http://hdl.handle.net/10641/2317</mods:identifier>
        <mods:identifier type="doi">10.1002/14651858.CD009880.pub3</mods:identifier>
        <mods:abstract>Infective endocarditis is a microbial infection of the endocardial surface of the heart. Antibiotics are the cornerstone of treatment, but due to the differences in presentation, populations affected, and the wide variety of micro-organisms that can be responsible, their use is not standardised. This is an update of a review previously published in 2016. Objectives: To assess the existing evidence about the clinical benefits and harms of different antibiotics regimens used to treat people with infective endocarditis. Search methods: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase Classic and Embase, LILACS, CINAHL, and the Conference Proceedings Citation Index - Science on 6 January 2020. We also searched three trials registers and handsearched the reference lists of included papers. We applied no language restrictions. Selection criteria: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) assessing the effects of antibiotic regimens for treating definitive infective endocarditis diagnosed according to modified Duke's criteria. We considered all-cause mortality, cure rates, and adverse events as the primary outcomes. We excluded people with possible infective endocarditis and pregnant women. Data collection and analysis: Two review authors independently performed study selection, 'Risk of bias' assessment, and data extraction in duplicate. We constructed 'Summary of findings' tables and used GRADE methodology to assess the quality of the evidence. We described the included studies narratively. Main results: Six small RCTs involving 1143 allocated/632 analysed participants met the inclusion criteria of this first update. The included trials had a high risk of bias. Three trials were sponsored by drug companies. Due to heterogeneity in outcome definitions and different antibiotics used data could not be pooled. The included trials compared miscellaneous antibiotic schedules having uncertain effects for all of the prespecified outcomes in this review. Evidence was either low or very low quality due to high risk of bias and very low number of events and small sample size. The results for all-cause mortality were as follows: one trial compared quinolone (levofloxacin) plus standard treatment (antistaphylococcal penicillin (cloxacillin or dicloxacillin), aminoglycoside (tobramycin or netilmicin), and rifampicin) versus standard treatment alone and reported 8/31 (26%) with levofloxacin plus standard treatment versus 9/39 (23%) with standard treatment alone; risk ratio (RR) 1.12, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.49 to 2.56. One trial compared fosfomycin plus imipenem 3/4 (75%) versus vancomycin 0/4 (0%) (RR 7.00, 95% CI 0.47 to 103.27), and one trial compared partial oral treatment 7/201 (3.5%) versus conventional intravenous treatment 13/199 (6.53%) (RR 0.53, 95% CI 0.22 to 1.31). The results for rates of cure with or without surgery were as follows: one trial compared daptomycin versus low-dose gentamicin plus an antistaphylococcal penicillin (nafcillin, oxacillin, or flucloxacillin) or vancomycin and reported 9/28 (32.1%) with daptomycin versus 9/25 (36%) with low-dose gentamicin plus antistaphylococcal penicillin or vancomycin; RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.42 to 1.89. One trial compared glycopeptide (vancomycin or teicoplanin) plus gentamicin with cloxacillin plus gentamicin (13/23 (56%) versus 11/11 (100%); RR 0.59, 95% CI 0.40 to 0.85). One trial compared ceftriaxone plus gentamicin versus ceftriaxone alone (15/34 (44%) versus 21/33 (64%); RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.44 to 1.10), and one trial compared fosfomycin plus imipenem versus vancomycin (1/4 (25%) versus 2/4 (50%); RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.07 to 3.55). The included trials reported adverse events, the need for cardiac surgical interventions, and rates of uncontrolled infection, congestive heart failure, relapse of endocarditis, and septic emboli, and found no conclusive differences between groups (very low-quality evidence). No trials assessed quality of life. Authors' conclusions: This first update confirms the findings of the original version of the review. Limited and low to very low-quality evidence suggests that the comparative effects of different antibiotic regimens in terms of cure rates or other relevant clinical outcomes are uncertain. The conclusions of this updated Cochrane Review were based on few RCTs with a high risk of bias. Accordingly, current evidence does not support or reject any regimen of antibiotic therapy for the treatment of infective endocarditis.</mods:abstract>
        <mods:language>
        <mods:languageTerm authority="rfc3066">eng</mods:languageTerm>
        </mods:language>
        <mods:accessCondition type="useAndReproduction">Atribución-NoComercial-SinDerivadas 3.0 España</mods:accessCondition>
        <mods:subject>
        <mods:topic>Anti-Bacterial Agents</mods:topic>
        </mods:subject>
        <mods:subject>
        <mods:topic>Endocarditis, Bacterial</mods:topic>
        </mods:subject>
        <mods:subject>
        <mods:topic>Fosfomycin</mods:topic>
        </mods:subject>
        <mods:subject>
        <mods:topic>Imipenem</mods:topic>
        </mods:subject>
        <mods:subject>
        <mods:topic>Levofloxacin</mods:topic>
        </mods:subject>
        <mods:subject>
        <mods:topic>Penicillins</mods:topic>
        </mods:subject>
        <mods:subject>
        <mods:topic>Randomized controlled trials as topic</mods:topic>
        </mods:subject>
        <mods:subject>
        <mods:topic>Vancomycin</mods:topic>
        </mods:subject>
        <mods:titleInfo>
        <mods:title>A comparison of different antibiotic regimens for the treatment of infective endocarditis.</mods:title>
        </mods:titleInfo>
        <mods:genre>article</mods:genre>
        </mods:mods>
      </xmlData>
    </mdWrap>
  </dmdSec>
3. <amdSec ID="TMD_10641_2317">
  1. <rightsMD ID="RIG_10641_2317">
    1. <mdWrap MDTYPE="OTHER" MIMETYPE="text/plain" OTHERMDTYPE="DSpaceDepositLicense">
      1. <binData>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</binData>
      </mdWrap>
    </rightsMD>
  </amdSec>
4. <amdSec ID="FO_10641_2317_1">
  1. <techMD ID="TECH_O_10641_2317_1">
    1. <mdWrap MDTYPE="PREMIS">
      1. <xmlData schemaLocation="http://www.loc.gov/standards/premis http://www.loc.gov/standards/premis/PREMIS-v1-0.xsd">
        <premis:premis>
        <premis:object>
        <premis:objectIdentifier>
        <premis:objectIdentifierType>URL</premis:objectIdentifierType>
        <premis:objectIdentifierValue>http://ddfv.ufv.es/bitstream/10641/2317/1/CD009880.pdf</premis:objectIdentifierValue>
        </premis:objectIdentifier>
        <premis:objectCategory>File</premis:objectCategory>
        <premis:objectCharacteristics>
        <premis:fixity>
        <premis:messageDigestAlgorithm>MD5</premis:messageDigestAlgorithm>
        <premis:messageDigest>b2e988cacd15af727fe6216b9db7fd51</premis:messageDigest>
        </premis:fixity>
        <premis:size>897496</premis:size>
        <premis:format>
        <premis:formatDesignation>
        <premis:formatName>application/pdf</premis:formatName>
        </premis:formatDesignation>
        </premis:format>
        </premis:objectCharacteristics>
        <premis:originalName>CD009880.pdf</premis:originalName>
        </premis:object>
        </premis:premis>
        </xmlData>
      </mdWrap>
    </techMD>
  </amdSec>
5. <amdSec ID="FT_10641_2317_4">
  1. <techMD ID="TECH_T_10641_2317_4">
    1. <mdWrap MDTYPE="PREMIS">
      1. <xmlData schemaLocation="http://www.loc.gov/standards/premis http://www.loc.gov/standards/premis/PREMIS-v1-0.xsd">
        <premis:premis>
        <premis:object>
        <premis:objectIdentifier>
        <premis:objectIdentifierType>URL</premis:objectIdentifierType>
        <premis:objectIdentifierValue>http://ddfv.ufv.es/bitstream/10641/2317/4/CD009880.pdf.txt</premis:objectIdentifierValue>
        </premis:objectIdentifier>
        <premis:objectCategory>File</premis:objectCategory>
        <premis:objectCharacteristics>
        <premis:fixity>
        <premis:messageDigestAlgorithm>MD5</premis:messageDigestAlgorithm>
        <premis:messageDigest>1514dcd38ea9244c6a8eb2a08d99a020</premis:messageDigest>
        </premis:fixity>
        <premis:size>282054</premis:size>
        <premis:format>
        <premis:formatDesignation>
        <premis:formatName>text/plain</premis:formatName>
        </premis:formatDesignation>
        </premis:format>
        </premis:objectCharacteristics>
        <premis:originalName>CD009880.pdf.txt</premis:originalName>
        </premis:object>
        </premis:premis>
        </xmlData>
      </mdWrap>
    </techMD>
  </amdSec>
6. <fileSec>
  1. <fileGrp USE="ORIGINAL">
    1. <file ADMID="FO_10641_2317_1" CHECKSUM="b2e988cacd15af727fe6216b9db7fd51" CHECKSUMTYPE="MD5" GROUPID="GROUP_BITSTREAM_10641_2317_1" ID="BITSTREAM_ORIGINAL_10641_2317_1" MIMETYPE="application/pdf" SEQ="1" SIZE="897496">
      1. <FLocat LOCTYPE="URL" href="http://ddfv.ufv.es/bitstream/10641/2317/1/CD009880.pdf" type="simple" />
      </file>
    </fileGrp>
  2. <fileGrp USE="TEXT">
    1. <file ADMID="FT_10641_2317_4" CHECKSUM="1514dcd38ea9244c6a8eb2a08d99a020" CHECKSUMTYPE="MD5" GROUPID="GROUP_BITSTREAM_10641_2317_4" ID="BITSTREAM_TEXT_10641_2317_4" MIMETYPE="text/plain" SEQ="4" SIZE="282054">
      1. <FLocat LOCTYPE="URL" href="http://ddfv.ufv.es/bitstream/10641/2317/4/CD009880.pdf.txt" type="simple" />
      </file>
    </fileGrp>
  </fileSec>
7. <structMap LABEL="DSpace Object" TYPE="LOGICAL">
  1. <div ADMID="DMD_10641_2317" TYPE="DSpace Object Contents">
    1. <div TYPE="DSpace BITSTREAM">
      1. <fptr FILEID="BITSTREAM_ORIGINAL_10641_2317_1" />
      </div>
    </div>
  </structMap>
</mets>

mods

Descargar XML

<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" ?>

<mods:mods schemaLocation="http://www.loc.gov/mods/v3 http://www.loc.gov/standards/mods/v3/mods-3-1.xsd">
1. <mods:name>
  1. <mods:namePart>Martí-Carvajal, A.J.</mods:namePart>
  </mods:name>
2. <mods:name>
  1. <mods:namePart>Dayer, M.</mods:namePart>
  </mods:name>
3. <mods:name>
  1. <mods:namePart>Conterno, L.O.</mods:namePart>
  </mods:name>
4. <mods:name>
  1. <mods:namePart>González Garay, A.G.</mods:namePart>
  </mods:name>
5. <mods:name>
  1. <mods:namePart>Martí-Amarista, C.E.</mods:namePart>
  </mods:name>
6. <mods:extension>
  1. <mods:dateAvailable encoding="iso8601">2021-06-15T09:38:04Z</mods:dateAvailable>
  </mods:extension>
7. <mods:extension>
  1. <mods:dateAccessioned encoding="iso8601">2021-06-15T09:38:04Z</mods:dateAccessioned>
  </mods:extension>
8. <mods:originInfo>
  1. <mods:dateIssued encoding="iso8601">2020</mods:dateIssued>
  </mods:originInfo>
9. <mods:identifier type="issn">1469-493X</mods:identifier>
10. <mods:identifier type="uri">http://hdl.handle.net/10641/2317</mods:identifier>
11. <mods:identifier type="doi">10.1002/14651858.CD009880.pub3</mods:identifier>
12. <mods:abstract>Infective endocarditis is a microbial infection of the endocardial surface of the heart. Antibiotics are the cornerstone of treatment, but due to the differences in presentation, populations affected, and the wide variety of micro-organisms that can be responsible, their use is not standardised. This is an update of a review previously published in 2016. Objectives: To assess the existing evidence about the clinical benefits and harms of different antibiotics regimens used to treat people with infective endocarditis. Search methods: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase Classic and Embase, LILACS, CINAHL, and the Conference Proceedings Citation Index - Science on 6 January 2020. We also searched three trials registers and handsearched the reference lists of included papers. We applied no language restrictions. Selection criteria: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) assessing the effects of antibiotic regimens for treating definitive infective endocarditis diagnosed according to modified Duke's criteria. We considered all-cause mortality, cure rates, and adverse events as the primary outcomes. We excluded people with possible infective endocarditis and pregnant women. Data collection and analysis: Two review authors independently performed study selection, 'Risk of bias' assessment, and data extraction in duplicate. We constructed 'Summary of findings' tables and used GRADE methodology to assess the quality of the evidence. We described the included studies narratively. Main results: Six small RCTs involving 1143 allocated/632 analysed participants met the inclusion criteria of this first update. The included trials had a high risk of bias. Three trials were sponsored by drug companies. Due to heterogeneity in outcome definitions and different antibiotics used data could not be pooled. The included trials compared miscellaneous antibiotic schedules having uncertain effects for all of the prespecified outcomes in this review. Evidence was either low or very low quality due to high risk of bias and very low number of events and small sample size. The results for all-cause mortality were as follows: one trial compared quinolone (levofloxacin) plus standard treatment (antistaphylococcal penicillin (cloxacillin or dicloxacillin), aminoglycoside (tobramycin or netilmicin), and rifampicin) versus standard treatment alone and reported 8/31 (26%) with levofloxacin plus standard treatment versus 9/39 (23%) with standard treatment alone; risk ratio (RR) 1.12, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.49 to 2.56. One trial compared fosfomycin plus imipenem 3/4 (75%) versus vancomycin 0/4 (0%) (RR 7.00, 95% CI 0.47 to 103.27), and one trial compared partial oral treatment 7/201 (3.5%) versus conventional intravenous treatment 13/199 (6.53%) (RR 0.53, 95% CI 0.22 to 1.31). The results for rates of cure with or without surgery were as follows: one trial compared daptomycin versus low-dose gentamicin plus an antistaphylococcal penicillin (nafcillin, oxacillin, or flucloxacillin) or vancomycin and reported 9/28 (32.1%) with daptomycin versus 9/25 (36%) with low-dose gentamicin plus antistaphylococcal penicillin or vancomycin; RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.42 to 1.89. One trial compared glycopeptide (vancomycin or teicoplanin) plus gentamicin with cloxacillin plus gentamicin (13/23 (56%) versus 11/11 (100%); RR 0.59, 95% CI 0.40 to 0.85). One trial compared ceftriaxone plus gentamicin versus ceftriaxone alone (15/34 (44%) versus 21/33 (64%); RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.44 to 1.10), and one trial compared fosfomycin plus imipenem versus vancomycin (1/4 (25%) versus 2/4 (50%); RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.07 to 3.55). The included trials reported adverse events, the need for cardiac surgical interventions, and rates of uncontrolled infection, congestive heart failure, relapse of endocarditis, and septic emboli, and found no conclusive differences between groups (very low-quality evidence). No trials assessed quality of life. Authors' conclusions: This first update confirms the findings of the original version of the review. Limited and low to very low-quality evidence suggests that the comparative effects of different antibiotic regimens in terms of cure rates or other relevant clinical outcomes are uncertain. The conclusions of this updated Cochrane Review were based on few RCTs with a high risk of bias. Accordingly, current evidence does not support or reject any regimen of antibiotic therapy for the treatment of infective endocarditis.</mods:abstract>
13. <mods:language>
  1. <mods:languageTerm>eng</mods:languageTerm>
  </mods:language>
14. <mods:accessCondition type="useAndReproduction">http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/es/</mods:accessCondition>
15. <mods:accessCondition type="useAndReproduction">openAccess</mods:accessCondition>
16. <mods:accessCondition type="useAndReproduction">Atribución-NoComercial-SinDerivadas 3.0 España</mods:accessCondition>
17. <mods:subject>
  1. <mods:topic>Anti-Bacterial Agents</mods:topic>
  </mods:subject>
18. <mods:subject>
  1. <mods:topic>Endocarditis, Bacterial</mods:topic>
  </mods:subject>
19. <mods:subject>
  1. <mods:topic>Fosfomycin</mods:topic>
  </mods:subject>
20. <mods:subject>
  1. <mods:topic>Imipenem</mods:topic>
  </mods:subject>
21. <mods:subject>
  1. <mods:topic>Levofloxacin</mods:topic>
  </mods:subject>
22. <mods:subject>
  1. <mods:topic>Penicillins</mods:topic>
  </mods:subject>
23. <mods:subject>
  1. <mods:topic>Randomized controlled trials as topic</mods:topic>
  </mods:subject>
24. <mods:subject>
  1. <mods:topic>Vancomycin</mods:topic>
  </mods:subject>
25. <mods:titleInfo>
  1. <mods:title>A comparison of different antibiotic regimens for the treatment of infective endocarditis.</mods:title>
  </mods:titleInfo>
26. <mods:genre>article</mods:genre>
</mods:mods>

ore

Descargar XML

<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" ?>

<atom:entry schemaLocation="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom http://www.kbcafe.com/rss/atom.xsd.xml">
1. <atom:id>http://hdl.handle.net/10641/2317/ore.xml</atom:id>
2. <atom:link href="http://hdl.handle.net/10641/2317" rel="alternate" />
3. <atom:link href="http://hdl.handle.net/10641/2317/ore.xml" rel="http://www.openarchives.org/ore/terms/describes" />
4. <atom:link href="http://hdl.handle.net/10641/2317/ore.xml#atom" rel="self" type="application/atom+xml" />
5. <atom:published>2021-06-15T09:38:04Z</atom:published>
6. <atom:updated>2021-06-15T09:38:04Z</atom:updated>
7. <atom:source>
  1. <atom:generator>DDFV</atom:generator>
  </atom:source>
8. <atom:title>A comparison of different antibiotic regimens for the treatment of infective endocarditis.</atom:title>
9. <atom:author>
  1. <atom:name>Martí-Carvajal, A.J.</atom:name>
  </atom:author>
10. <atom:author>
  1. <atom:name>Dayer, M.</atom:name>
  </atom:author>
11. <atom:author>
  1. <atom:name>Conterno, L.O.</atom:name>
  </atom:author>
12. <atom:author>
  1. <atom:name>González Garay, A.G.</atom:name>
  </atom:author>
13. <atom:author>
  1. <atom:name>Martí-Amarista, C.E.</atom:name>
  </atom:author>
14. <atom:category label="Aggregation" scheme="http://www.openarchives.org/ore/terms/" term="http://www.openarchives.org/ore/terms/Aggregation" />
15. <atom:category scheme="http://www.openarchives.org/ore/atom/modified" term="2021-06-15T09:38:04Z" />
16. <atom:category label="DSpace Item" scheme="http://www.dspace.org/objectModel/" term="DSpaceItem" />
17. <atom:link href="http://ddfv.ufv.es/bitstream/10641/2317/1/CD009880.pdf" length="897496" rel="http://www.openarchives.org/ore/terms/aggregates" title="CD009880.pdf" type="application/pdf" />
18. <oreatom:triples>
  1. <rdf:Description about="http://hdl.handle.net/10641/2317/ore.xml#atom">
    1. <rdf:type resource="http://www.dspace.org/objectModel/DSpaceItem" />
    2. <dcterms:modified>2021-06-15T09:38:04Z</dcterms:modified>
    </rdf:Description>
  2. <rdf:Description about="http://ddfv.ufv.es/bitstream/10641/2317/1/CD009880.pdf">
    1. <rdf:type resource="http://www.dspace.org/objectModel/DSpaceBitstream" />
    2. <dcterms:description>ORIGINAL</dcterms:description>
    </rdf:Description>
  3. <rdf:Description about="http://ddfv.ufv.es/bitstream/10641/2317/2/license_rdf">
    1. <rdf:type resource="http://www.dspace.org/objectModel/DSpaceBitstream" />
    2. <dcterms:description>CC-LICENSE</dcterms:description>
    </rdf:Description>
  4. <rdf:Description about="http://ddfv.ufv.es/bitstream/10641/2317/3/license.txt">
    1. <rdf:type resource="http://www.dspace.org/objectModel/DSpaceBitstream" />
    2. <dcterms:description>LICENSE</dcterms:description>
    </rdf:Description>
  5. <rdf:Description about="http://ddfv.ufv.es/bitstream/10641/2317/4/CD009880.pdf.txt">
    1. <rdf:type resource="http://www.dspace.org/objectModel/DSpaceBitstream" />
    2. <dcterms:description>TEXT</dcterms:description>
    </rdf:Description>
  6. <rdf:Description about="http://ddfv.ufv.es/bitstream/10641/2317/5/CD009880.pdf.jpg">
    1. <rdf:type resource="http://www.dspace.org/objectModel/DSpaceBitstream" />
    2. <dcterms:description>THUMBNAIL</dcterms:description>
    </rdf:Description>
  </oreatom:triples>
</atom:entry>

qdc

Descargar XML

<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" ?>

<qdc:qualifieddc schemaLocation="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/ http://dublincore.org/schemas/xmls/qdc/2006/01/06/dc.xsd http://purl.org/dc/terms/ http://dublincore.org/schemas/xmls/qdc/2006/01/06/dcterms.xsd http://dspace.org/qualifieddc/ http://www.ukoln.ac.uk/metadata/dcmi/xmlschema/qualifieddc.xsd">
1. <dc:title>A comparison of different antibiotic regimens for the treatment of infective endocarditis.</dc:title>
2. <dc:creator>Martí-Carvajal, A.J.</dc:creator>
3. <dc:creator>Dayer, M.</dc:creator>
4. <dc:creator>Conterno, L.O.</dc:creator>
5. <dc:creator>González Garay, A.G.</dc:creator>
6. <dc:creator>Martí-Amarista, C.E.</dc:creator>
7. <dc:subject>Anti-Bacterial Agents</dc:subject>
8. <dc:subject>Endocarditis, Bacterial</dc:subject>
9. <dc:subject>Fosfomycin</dc:subject>
10. <dc:subject>Imipenem</dc:subject>
11. <dc:subject>Levofloxacin</dc:subject>
12. <dc:subject>Penicillins</dc:subject>
13. <dc:subject>Randomized controlled trials as topic</dc:subject>
14. <dc:subject>Vancomycin</dc:subject>
15. <dcterms:abstract>Infective endocarditis is a microbial infection of the endocardial surface of the heart. Antibiotics are the cornerstone of treatment, but due to the differences in presentation, populations affected, and the wide variety of micro-organisms that can be responsible, their use is not standardised. This is an update of a review previously published in 2016. Objectives: To assess the existing evidence about the clinical benefits and harms of different antibiotics regimens used to treat people with infective endocarditis. Search methods: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase Classic and Embase, LILACS, CINAHL, and the Conference Proceedings Citation Index - Science on 6 January 2020. We also searched three trials registers and handsearched the reference lists of included papers. We applied no language restrictions. Selection criteria: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) assessing the effects of antibiotic regimens for treating definitive infective endocarditis diagnosed according to modified Duke's criteria. We considered all-cause mortality, cure rates, and adverse events as the primary outcomes. We excluded people with possible infective endocarditis and pregnant women. Data collection and analysis: Two review authors independently performed study selection, 'Risk of bias' assessment, and data extraction in duplicate. We constructed 'Summary of findings' tables and used GRADE methodology to assess the quality of the evidence. We described the included studies narratively. Main results: Six small RCTs involving 1143 allocated/632 analysed participants met the inclusion criteria of this first update. The included trials had a high risk of bias. Three trials were sponsored by drug companies. Due to heterogeneity in outcome definitions and different antibiotics used data could not be pooled. The included trials compared miscellaneous antibiotic schedules having uncertain effects for all of the prespecified outcomes in this review. Evidence was either low or very low quality due to high risk of bias and very low number of events and small sample size. The results for all-cause mortality were as follows: one trial compared quinolone (levofloxacin) plus standard treatment (antistaphylococcal penicillin (cloxacillin or dicloxacillin), aminoglycoside (tobramycin or netilmicin), and rifampicin) versus standard treatment alone and reported 8/31 (26%) with levofloxacin plus standard treatment versus 9/39 (23%) with standard treatment alone; risk ratio (RR) 1.12, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.49 to 2.56. One trial compared fosfomycin plus imipenem 3/4 (75%) versus vancomycin 0/4 (0%) (RR 7.00, 95% CI 0.47 to 103.27), and one trial compared partial oral treatment 7/201 (3.5%) versus conventional intravenous treatment 13/199 (6.53%) (RR 0.53, 95% CI 0.22 to 1.31). The results for rates of cure with or without surgery were as follows: one trial compared daptomycin versus low-dose gentamicin plus an antistaphylococcal penicillin (nafcillin, oxacillin, or flucloxacillin) or vancomycin and reported 9/28 (32.1%) with daptomycin versus 9/25 (36%) with low-dose gentamicin plus antistaphylococcal penicillin or vancomycin; RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.42 to 1.89. One trial compared glycopeptide (vancomycin or teicoplanin) plus gentamicin with cloxacillin plus gentamicin (13/23 (56%) versus 11/11 (100%); RR 0.59, 95% CI 0.40 to 0.85). One trial compared ceftriaxone plus gentamicin versus ceftriaxone alone (15/34 (44%) versus 21/33 (64%); RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.44 to 1.10), and one trial compared fosfomycin plus imipenem versus vancomycin (1/4 (25%) versus 2/4 (50%); RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.07 to 3.55). The included trials reported adverse events, the need for cardiac surgical interventions, and rates of uncontrolled infection, congestive heart failure, relapse of endocarditis, and septic emboli, and found no conclusive differences between groups (very low-quality evidence). No trials assessed quality of life. Authors' conclusions: This first update confirms the findings of the original version of the review. Limited and low to very low-quality evidence suggests that the comparative effects of different antibiotic regimens in terms of cure rates or other relevant clinical outcomes are uncertain. The conclusions of this updated Cochrane Review were based on few RCTs with a high risk of bias. Accordingly, current evidence does not support or reject any regimen of antibiotic therapy for the treatment of infective endocarditis.</dcterms:abstract>
16. <dcterms:dateAccepted>2021-06-15T09:38:04Z</dcterms:dateAccepted>
17. <dcterms:available>2021-06-15T09:38:04Z</dcterms:available>
18. <dcterms:created>2021-06-15T09:38:04Z</dcterms:created>
19. <dcterms:issued>2020</dcterms:issued>
20. <dc:type>article</dc:type>
21. <dc:identifier>1469-493X</dc:identifier>
22. <dc:identifier>http://hdl.handle.net/10641/2317</dc:identifier>
23. <dc:identifier>10.1002/14651858.CD009880.pub3</dc:identifier>
24. <dc:language>eng</dc:language>
25. <dc:relation>https://www.cochranelibrary.com/cdsr/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD009880.pub3/full</dc:relation>
26. <dc:rights>http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/es/</dc:rights>
27. <dc:rights>openAccess</dc:rights>
28. <dc:rights>Atribución-NoComercial-SinDerivadas 3.0 España</dc:rights>
29. <dc:publisher>Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews</dc:publisher>
</qdc:qualifieddc>

rdf

Descargar XML

<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" ?>

<rdf:RDF schemaLocation="http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/2.0/rdf/ http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/2.0/rdf.xsd">
1. <ow:Publication about="oai:ddfv.ufv.es:10641/2317">
  1. <dc:title>A comparison of different antibiotic regimens for the treatment of infective endocarditis.</dc:title>
  2. <dc:creator>Martí-Carvajal, A.J.</dc:creator>
  3. <dc:creator>Dayer, M.</dc:creator>
  4. <dc:creator>Conterno, L.O.</dc:creator>
  5. <dc:creator>González Garay, A.G.</dc:creator>
  6. <dc:creator>Martí-Amarista, C.E.</dc:creator>
  7. <dc:subject>Anti-Bacterial Agents</dc:subject>
  8. <dc:subject>Endocarditis, Bacterial</dc:subject>
  9. <dc:subject>Fosfomycin</dc:subject>
  10. <dc:subject>Imipenem</dc:subject>
  11. <dc:subject>Levofloxacin</dc:subject>
  12. <dc:subject>Penicillins</dc:subject>
  13. <dc:subject>Randomized controlled trials as topic</dc:subject>
  14. <dc:subject>Vancomycin</dc:subject>
  15. <dc:description>Infective endocarditis is a microbial infection of the endocardial surface of the heart. Antibiotics are the cornerstone of treatment, but due to the differences in presentation, populations affected, and the wide variety of micro-organisms that can be responsible, their use is not standardised. This is an update of a review previously published in 2016. Objectives: To assess the existing evidence about the clinical benefits and harms of different antibiotics regimens used to treat people with infective endocarditis. Search methods: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase Classic and Embase, LILACS, CINAHL, and the Conference Proceedings Citation Index - Science on 6 January 2020. We also searched three trials registers and handsearched the reference lists of included papers. We applied no language restrictions. Selection criteria: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) assessing the effects of antibiotic regimens for treating definitive infective endocarditis diagnosed according to modified Duke's criteria. We considered all-cause mortality, cure rates, and adverse events as the primary outcomes. We excluded people with possible infective endocarditis and pregnant women. Data collection and analysis: Two review authors independently performed study selection, 'Risk of bias' assessment, and data extraction in duplicate. We constructed 'Summary of findings' tables and used GRADE methodology to assess the quality of the evidence. We described the included studies narratively. Main results: Six small RCTs involving 1143 allocated/632 analysed participants met the inclusion criteria of this first update. The included trials had a high risk of bias. Three trials were sponsored by drug companies. Due to heterogeneity in outcome definitions and different antibiotics used data could not be pooled. The included trials compared miscellaneous antibiotic schedules having uncertain effects for all of the prespecified outcomes in this review. Evidence was either low or very low quality due to high risk of bias and very low number of events and small sample size. The results for all-cause mortality were as follows: one trial compared quinolone (levofloxacin) plus standard treatment (antistaphylococcal penicillin (cloxacillin or dicloxacillin), aminoglycoside (tobramycin or netilmicin), and rifampicin) versus standard treatment alone and reported 8/31 (26%) with levofloxacin plus standard treatment versus 9/39 (23%) with standard treatment alone; risk ratio (RR) 1.12, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.49 to 2.56. One trial compared fosfomycin plus imipenem 3/4 (75%) versus vancomycin 0/4 (0%) (RR 7.00, 95% CI 0.47 to 103.27), and one trial compared partial oral treatment 7/201 (3.5%) versus conventional intravenous treatment 13/199 (6.53%) (RR 0.53, 95% CI 0.22 to 1.31). The results for rates of cure with or without surgery were as follows: one trial compared daptomycin versus low-dose gentamicin plus an antistaphylococcal penicillin (nafcillin, oxacillin, or flucloxacillin) or vancomycin and reported 9/28 (32.1%) with daptomycin versus 9/25 (36%) with low-dose gentamicin plus antistaphylococcal penicillin or vancomycin; RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.42 to 1.89. One trial compared glycopeptide (vancomycin or teicoplanin) plus gentamicin with cloxacillin plus gentamicin (13/23 (56%) versus 11/11 (100%); RR 0.59, 95% CI 0.40 to 0.85). One trial compared ceftriaxone plus gentamicin versus ceftriaxone alone (15/34 (44%) versus 21/33 (64%); RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.44 to 1.10), and one trial compared fosfomycin plus imipenem versus vancomycin (1/4 (25%) versus 2/4 (50%); RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.07 to 3.55). The included trials reported adverse events, the need for cardiac surgical interventions, and rates of uncontrolled infection, congestive heart failure, relapse of endocarditis, and septic emboli, and found no conclusive differences between groups (very low-quality evidence). No trials assessed quality of life. Authors' conclusions: This first update confirms the findings of the original version of the review. Limited and low to very low-quality evidence suggests that the comparative effects of different antibiotic regimens in terms of cure rates or other relevant clinical outcomes are uncertain. The conclusions of this updated Cochrane Review were based on few RCTs with a high risk of bias. Accordingly, current evidence does not support or reject any regimen of antibiotic therapy for the treatment of infective endocarditis.</dc:description>
  16. <dc:date>2021-06-15T09:38:04Z</dc:date>
  17. <dc:date>2021-06-15T09:38:04Z</dc:date>
  18. <dc:date>2020</dc:date>
  19. <dc:type>article</dc:type>
  20. <dc:identifier>1469-493X</dc:identifier>
  21. <dc:identifier>http://hdl.handle.net/10641/2317</dc:identifier>
  22. <dc:identifier>10.1002/14651858.CD009880.pub3</dc:identifier>
  23. <dc:language>eng</dc:language>
  24. <dc:relation>https://www.cochranelibrary.com/cdsr/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD009880.pub3/full</dc:relation>
  25. <dc:rights>http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/es/</dc:rights>
  26. <dc:rights>openAccess</dc:rights>
  27. <dc:rights>Atribución-NoComercial-SinDerivadas 3.0 España</dc:rights>
  28. <dc:publisher>Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews</dc:publisher>
  </ow:Publication>
</rdf:RDF>

xoai

Descargar XML

<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" ?>

<metadata schemaLocation="http://www.lyncode.com/xoai http://www.lyncode.com/xsd/xoai.xsd">
1. <element name="dc">
  1. <element name="contributor">
    1. <element name="author">
      1. <element name="none">
        <field name="value">Martí-Carvajal, A.J.</field>
        <field name="authority">362f880d-ca5c-49ce-8b98-7dc4544d4b7b</field>
        <field name="confidence">600</field>
        <field name="value">Dayer, M.</field>
        <field name="authority">01e7d8b3-3485-4d56-9d4d-d73c5aefa122</field>
        <field name="confidence">600</field>
        <field name="value">Conterno, L.O.</field>
        <field name="authority">c022ca96-fd2a-41b5-9504-a27c23d4c3b4</field>
        <field name="confidence">600</field>
        <field name="value">González Garay, A.G.</field>
        <field name="authority">2fd4f76d-eccd-4bd8-b41b-3960e91bbbd9</field>
        <field name="confidence">600</field>
        <field name="value">Martí-Amarista, C.E.</field>
        <field name="authority">138dbb39-0cc8-488c-a3b7-16b5dd832685</field>
        <field name="confidence">600</field>
        </element>
      </element>
    </element>
  2. <element name="date">
    1. <element name="accessioned">
      1. <element name="none">
        <field name="value">2021-06-15T09:38:04Z</field>
        </element>
      </element>
    2. <element name="available">
      1. <element name="none">
        <field name="value">2021-06-15T09:38:04Z</field>
        </element>
      </element>
    3. <element name="issued">
      1. <element name="none">
        <field name="value">2020</field>
        </element>
      </element>
    </element>
  3. <element name="identifier">
    1. <element name="issn">
      1. <element name="spa">
        <field name="value">1469-493X</field>
        </element>
      </element>
    2. <element name="uri">
      1. <element name="none">
        <field name="value">http://hdl.handle.net/10641/2317</field>
        </element>
      </element>
    3. <element name="doi">
      1. <element name="spa">
        <field name="value">10.1002/14651858.CD009880.pub3</field>
        </element>
      </element>
    </element>
  4. <element name="description">
    1. <element name="abstract">
      1. <element name="spa">
        <field name="value">Infective endocarditis is a microbial infection of the endocardial surface of the heart. Antibiotics are the cornerstone of treatment, but due to the differences in presentation, populations affected, and the wide variety of micro-organisms that can be responsible, their use is not standardised. This is an update of a review previously published in 2016. Objectives: To assess the existing evidence about the clinical benefits and harms of different antibiotics regimens used to treat people with infective endocarditis. Search methods: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase Classic and Embase, LILACS, CINAHL, and the Conference Proceedings Citation Index - Science on 6 January 2020. We also searched three trials registers and handsearched the reference lists of included papers. We applied no language restrictions. Selection criteria: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) assessing the effects of antibiotic regimens for treating definitive infective endocarditis diagnosed according to modified Duke's criteria. We considered all-cause mortality, cure rates, and adverse events as the primary outcomes. We excluded people with possible infective endocarditis and pregnant women. Data collection and analysis: Two review authors independently performed study selection, 'Risk of bias' assessment, and data extraction in duplicate. We constructed 'Summary of findings' tables and used GRADE methodology to assess the quality of the evidence. We described the included studies narratively. Main results: Six small RCTs involving 1143 allocated/632 analysed participants met the inclusion criteria of this first update. The included trials had a high risk of bias. Three trials were sponsored by drug companies. Due to heterogeneity in outcome definitions and different antibiotics used data could not be pooled. The included trials compared miscellaneous antibiotic schedules having uncertain effects for all of the prespecified outcomes in this review. Evidence was either low or very low quality due to high risk of bias and very low number of events and small sample size. The results for all-cause mortality were as follows: one trial compared quinolone (levofloxacin) plus standard treatment (antistaphylococcal penicillin (cloxacillin or dicloxacillin), aminoglycoside (tobramycin or netilmicin), and rifampicin) versus standard treatment alone and reported 8/31 (26%) with levofloxacin plus standard treatment versus 9/39 (23%) with standard treatment alone; risk ratio (RR) 1.12, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.49 to 2.56. One trial compared fosfomycin plus imipenem 3/4 (75%) versus vancomycin 0/4 (0%) (RR 7.00, 95% CI 0.47 to 103.27), and one trial compared partial oral treatment 7/201 (3.5%) versus conventional intravenous treatment 13/199 (6.53%) (RR 0.53, 95% CI 0.22 to 1.31). The results for rates of cure with or without surgery were as follows: one trial compared daptomycin versus low-dose gentamicin plus an antistaphylococcal penicillin (nafcillin, oxacillin, or flucloxacillin) or vancomycin and reported 9/28 (32.1%) with daptomycin versus 9/25 (36%) with low-dose gentamicin plus antistaphylococcal penicillin or vancomycin; RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.42 to 1.89. One trial compared glycopeptide (vancomycin or teicoplanin) plus gentamicin with cloxacillin plus gentamicin (13/23 (56%) versus 11/11 (100%); RR 0.59, 95% CI 0.40 to 0.85). One trial compared ceftriaxone plus gentamicin versus ceftriaxone alone (15/34 (44%) versus 21/33 (64%); RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.44 to 1.10), and one trial compared fosfomycin plus imipenem versus vancomycin (1/4 (25%) versus 2/4 (50%); RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.07 to 3.55). The included trials reported adverse events, the need for cardiac surgical interventions, and rates of uncontrolled infection, congestive heart failure, relapse of endocarditis, and septic emboli, and found no conclusive differences between groups (very low-quality evidence). No trials assessed quality of life. Authors' conclusions: This first update confirms the findings of the original version of the review. Limited and low to very low-quality evidence suggests that the comparative effects of different antibiotic regimens in terms of cure rates or other relevant clinical outcomes are uncertain. The conclusions of this updated Cochrane Review were based on few RCTs with a high risk of bias. Accordingly, current evidence does not support or reject any regimen of antibiotic therapy for the treatment of infective endocarditis.</field>
        </element>
      </element>
    2. <element name="version">
      1. <element name="spa">
        <field name="value">post-print</field>
        </element>
      </element>
    3. <element name="extent">
      1. <element name="spa">
        <field name="value">876 KB</field>
        </element>
      </element>
    </element>
  5. <element name="language">
    1. <element name="iso">
      1. <element name="spa">
        <field name="value">eng</field>
        </element>
      </element>
    </element>
  6. <element name="publisher">
    1. <element name="spa">
      1. <field name="value">Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews</field>
      </element>
    </element>
  7. <element name="rights">
    1. <element name="*">
      1. <field name="value">Atribución-NoComercial-SinDerivadas 3.0 España</field>
      </element>
    2. <element name="uri">
      1. <element name="*">
        <field name="value">http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/es/</field>
        </element>
      </element>
    3. <element name="accessRights">
      1. <element name="spa">
        <field name="value">openAccess</field>
        </element>
      </element>
    </element>
  8. <element name="subject">
    1. <element name="spa">
      1. <field name="value">Anti-Bacterial Agents</field>
      2. <field name="value">Endocarditis, Bacterial</field>
      3. <field name="value">Fosfomycin</field>
      4. <field name="value">Imipenem</field>
      5. <field name="value">Levofloxacin</field>
      6. <field name="value">Penicillins</field>
      7. <field name="value">Randomized controlled trials as topic</field>
      8. <field name="value">Vancomycin</field>
      </element>
    </element>
  9. <element name="title">
    1. <element name="spa">
      1. <field name="value">A comparison of different antibiotic regimens for the treatment of infective endocarditis.</field>
      </element>
    </element>
  10. <element name="type">
    1. <element name="spa">
      1. <field name="value">article</field>
      </element>
    </element>
  11. <element name="relation">
    1. <element name="publisherversion">
      1. <element name="spa">
        <field name="value">https://www.cochranelibrary.com/cdsr/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD009880.pub3/full</field>
        </element>
      </element>
    </element>
  </element>
2. <element name="bundles">
  1. <element name="bundle">
    1. <field name="name">ORIGINAL</field>
    2. <element name="bitstreams">
      1. <element name="bitstream">
        <field name="name">CD009880.pdf</field>
        <field name="originalName">CD009880.pdf</field>
        <field name="description" />
        <field name="format">application/pdf</field>
        <field name="size">897496</field>
        <field name="url">http://ddfv.ufv.es/bitstream/10641/2317/1/CD009880.pdf</field>
        <field name="checksum">b2e988cacd15af727fe6216b9db7fd51</field>
        <field name="checksumAlgorithm">MD5</field>
        <field name="sid">1</field>
        </element>
      </element>
    </element>
  2. <element name="bundle">
    1. <field name="name">CC-LICENSE</field>
    2. <element name="bitstreams">
      1. <element name="bitstream">
        <field name="name">license_rdf</field>
        <field name="originalName">license_rdf</field>
        <field name="format">application/rdf+xml; charset=utf-8</field>
        <field name="size">811</field>
        <field name="url">http://ddfv.ufv.es/bitstream/10641/2317/2/license_rdf</field>
        <field name="checksum">4d01a8abc68801ab758ec8c2c04918c3</field>
        <field name="checksumAlgorithm">MD5</field>
        <field name="sid">2</field>
        </element>
      </element>
    </element>
  3. <element name="bundle">
    1. <field name="name">LICENSE</field>
    2. <element name="bitstreams">
      1. <element name="bitstream">
        <field name="name">license.txt</field>
        <field name="originalName">license.txt</field>
        <field name="format">text/plain; charset=utf-8</field>
        <field name="size">2418</field>
        <field name="url">http://ddfv.ufv.es/bitstream/10641/2317/3/license.txt</field>
        <field name="checksum">8b6e3a0bc6a1ca51936267b0e6e4740c</field>
        <field name="checksumAlgorithm">MD5</field>
        <field name="sid">3</field>
        </element>
      </element>
    </element>
  4. <element name="bundle">
    1. <field name="name">TEXT</field>
    2. <element name="bitstreams">
      1. <element name="bitstream">
        <field name="name">CD009880.pdf.txt</field>
        <field name="originalName">CD009880.pdf.txt</field>
        <field name="description">Extracted text</field>
        <field name="format">text/plain</field>
        <field name="size">282054</field>
        <field name="url">http://ddfv.ufv.es/bitstream/10641/2317/4/CD009880.pdf.txt</field>
        <field name="checksum">1514dcd38ea9244c6a8eb2a08d99a020</field>
        <field name="checksumAlgorithm">MD5</field>
        <field name="sid">4</field>
        </element>
      </element>
    </element>
  5. <element name="bundle">
    1. <field name="name">THUMBNAIL</field>
    2. <element name="bitstreams">
      1. <element name="bitstream">
        <field name="name">CD009880.pdf.jpg</field>
        <field name="originalName">CD009880.pdf.jpg</field>
        <field name="description">Generated Thumbnail</field>
        <field name="format">image/jpeg</field>
        <field name="size">1423</field>
        <field name="url">http://ddfv.ufv.es/bitstream/10641/2317/5/CD009880.pdf.jpg</field>
        <field name="checksum">e7faa44d49bf5f4ceb241e8c634e86b5</field>
        <field name="checksumAlgorithm">MD5</field>
        <field name="sid">5</field>
        </element>
      </element>
    </element>
  </element>
3. <element name="others">
  1. <field name="handle">10641/2317</field>
  2. <field name="identifier">oai:ddfv.ufv.es:10641/2317</field>
  3. <field name="lastModifyDate">2021-06-16 02:00:18.555</field>
  </element>
4. <element name="repository">
  1. <field name="name">DDFV</field>
  2. <field name="mail">dspace@ufv.es</field>
  </element>
5. <element name="license">
  1. <field name="bin">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</field>
  </element>
</metadata>