It appears you don't have support to open PDFs in this web browser. To view this file, Open with your PDF reader
Abstract
Background
Necrotizing soft tissue infections (NSTIs) are life-threatening infections. The aim of this study is to evaluate the safety of clindamycin plus vancomycin versus linezolid as empiric treatment of NSTIs.
Methods
This was a retrospective, single-center, quasi-experimental study of patients admitted from 1 June 2018 to 30 June 2019 (preintervention) and 1 May 2020 to 15 October 2021 (postintervention). Patients who received surgical management within 24 hours of NSTI diagnosis and at least 1 dose of linezolid or clindamycin were included. The primary endpoint was death at 30 days. The secondary outcomes included rates of acute kidney injury (AKI) and Clostridioides difficile infection (CDI).
Results
A total of 274 patients were identified by admission diagnosis code for NSTI or Fournier gangrene; 164 patients met the inclusion criteria. Sixty-two matched pairs were evaluated. There was no difference in rates of 30-day mortality (8.06% vs 6.45%; hazard ratio [HR], 1.67 [95% confidence interval {CI}, .32–10.73]; P = .65). There was no difference in CDI (6.45% vs 1.61%; HR, Infinite [Inf], [95% CI, .66–Inf]; P = .07) but more AKI in the preintervention group (9.68% vs 1.61%; HR, 6 [95% CI, .73–276]; P = .05).
Conclusions
In this small, retrospective, single-center, quasi-experimental study, there was no difference in 30-day mortality in patients receiving treatment with clindamycin plus vancomycin versus linezolid in combination with standard gram-negative and anaerobic therapy and surgical debridement for the treatment of NSTIs. A composite outcome of death, AKI, or CDI within 30 days was more common in the clindamycin plus vancomycin group.
You have requested "on-the-fly" machine translation of selected content from our databases. This functionality is provided solely for your convenience and is in no way intended to replace human translation. Show full disclaimer
Neither ProQuest nor its licensors make any representations or warranties with respect to the translations. The translations are automatically generated "AS IS" and "AS AVAILABLE" and are not retained in our systems. PROQUEST AND ITS LICENSORS SPECIFICALLY DISCLAIM ANY AND ALL EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION, ANY WARRANTIES FOR AVAILABILITY, ACCURACY, TIMELINESS, COMPLETENESS, NON-INFRINGMENT, MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. Your use of the translations is subject to all use restrictions contained in your Electronic Products License Agreement and by using the translation functionality you agree to forgo any and all claims against ProQuest or its licensors for your use of the translation functionality and any output derived there from. Hide full disclaimer
Details

1 Presbyterian Hospital Department of Pharmacy, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center , Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania , USA
2 Division of Infectious Diseases, Department of Medicine, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine , Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania , USA
3 Department of Pharmacy, Prisma Health–Midlands , Columbia, South Carolina , USA
4 Department of Surgery, University of Rochester Medical Center , Rochester, New York , USA
5 Department of Surgery and Critical Care Medicine, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine , Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania , USA
6 Office of Quality and Clinical Research Innovation, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center , Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania , USA