Recurrent Endocarditis in Persons Who Inject Drugs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background Infective endocarditis (IE) is increasing among persons who inject drugs (PWID) and has high morbidity and mortality. Recurrent IE in PWID is not well described. Methods This was a retrospective cohort study conducted between February 2007 and March 2016. It included adult inpatients (≥18) at any of 3 tertiary care centers in London, Ontario, with definite IE based on the Modified Duke's Criteria. The objectives were to characterize recurrent IE in PWID, identify risk factors for recurrent IE, identify the frequency of fungal endocarditis, and establish whether fungal infection was associated with higher mortality. Results Three hundred ninety patients had endocarditis, with 212/390 in PWID. Sixty-eight of 212 (32%) PWID had a second episode, with 28/212 (12%) having additional recurrences. Second-episode IE was more common in PWID (11/178 [6.2%] vs 68/212 [32.1%]; P < .001). Peripherally inserted central catheter (PICC) line abuse was associated with increased risk of recurrent endocarditis (odds ratio [OR], 1.97; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.01–3.87; P = .04). In PWID, fungal IE was more common in second episodes than first episodes (1/212 [0.5%] vs 5/68 [7.4%]; P = .004). Additionally, fungal infections were associated with mortality in second-episode IE in PWID with an adjusted OR of 16.49 (95% CI, 1.12–243.17; P = .041). Despite recurrent infection, likely due to continued drug use, there was a low rate of referral to addiction treatment (14/68 [20.6%]). Conclusions PWID have a high risk of recurrent endocarditis, particularly in patients who abuse PICC lines. Fungal endocarditis is more common in second-episode endocarditis and is associated with increased mortality. Consideration of empiric antifungal therapy in PWID with IE history and suspected IE should be considered.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".