CHRONIC SUPPRESSIVE ANTIBIOTIC TREATMENT FOR PERIPROSTHETIC JOINT INFECTION

Aim The intention of suppressive antimicrobial therapy (SAT) for prosthetic joint infection (PJI) is to minimise symptoms, maintain function and prevent further surgery in patients who cannot undergo further attempts at curative treatment(1). There is little high-quality evidence examining the role and efficacy of SAT for patients with PJI(1,2). The objective of this study was to describe the use of and outcomes after SAT in a large prospective PJI cohort. Methods A pre-planned analysis of a prospective multi-centre cohort of patients with PJI. SAT was defined as antimicrobial therapy for PJI continuing 12-months after diagnosis or where there was an intention for chronic suppressive antibiotics. The primary outcome was treatment failure at 24 months, defined as any of the development of PJI symptoms, further surgery or death from PJI. Secondary outcomes included Oxford Hip and Knee Scores. Results SAT was prescribed for 223 (31.0%) of the PJI cohort. Patients prescribed SAT for PJI were more likely to be older, have comorbidities, chronic PJI, higher CRP, a sinus tract and be treated with retention of their prosthesis than those not prescribed SAT. At 24-months, treatment failure was more common in the SAT group 75/185(40.1%) compared with the non-SAT group 85/447(19.0%). Propensity score adjusted analysis did not demonstrate an association between SAT and treatment failure in patients with chronic PJI (OR[95% CI] 1.57[0.63-3.91), late-acute PJI(1.87[0.90-3.87]), a sinus tract (2.74[0.89-8.39]), ongoing symptoms at day 90 (1.19[0.43-3.23]), treatment with DAIR(1.61[0.87-2.99]) or Staphylococcus aureus PJI (1.25[0.62-2.54]). There were similar improvements between SAT and non-SAT patients in functional joint scores (OHS median (IQR) +8.5(19.0) vs +7.0(22.0);p=0.78 and OKS +8.0(20.0) vs +7.0(22.0);p=0.53). Conclusion SAT use for PJI is common. The lack of demonstrated evidence in this study for its benefit in controlling infection across multiple subgroups of patients but with some improvements in functional scores, suggest that the advantages of SAT are at best complex.