Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jn8rn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-29T11:18:17.863Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Treatment Outcomes and Subsequent Healthcare Utilization Among Patients With Injection Drug Use–Associated Endocarditis

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 November 2020

Muhammad Dhanani
Affiliation:
Boston Medical Center
Carlos Acuna-Villaorduna
Affiliation:
Boston Medical Center
Tamar Barlam
Affiliation:
Boston Medical Center
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

Background: Addiction medicine consultation and medication-assisted treatment (MAT) have been promoted as a way to improve outcomes for patients hospitalized with injection drug use–associated endocarditis (IDU-IE). However, IDU-IE outcomes have not been evaluated in settings where these services are commonplace. Objective: In this study, we evaluated IDU-IE outcomes in a setting where involvement of addiction medicine consultants and use of MAT is well integrated into patient care. Methods: Medical records of patients hospitalized with a diagnosis of bacteremia or infective endocarditis (IE) between October 1, 2015, and December 31, 2017, at a safety-net hospital in Boston were screened for evidence of active injection drug use (IDU) within 6 months of hospitalization (as documented by providers or as supported by urine toxicology assays) for suspected or definite IE using modified Duke criteria. Patients without active IDU or IE were excluded, as were those with a diagnosis of IDU-IE over the 6 months prior to the index hospitalization. Demographic parameters, receipt of antibiotics and MAT, other clinical information, and details of rehospitalizations were recorded. Analyses of descriptive statistics were performed. Results: Of 567 subjects screened for inclusion, 47 patients met inclusion criteria. All had opiate use disorder (OUD); 41 patients (87.2%) had polysubstance abuse. Addiction medicine consultation was completed for 41 patients (87.2%). Of the 47 subjects, 23 patients (54.8%) received MAT (methadone or buprenorphine/naloxone) over their entire hospitalization, and 31 patients (73.8%) received MAT for >75% of the index admission. Moreover, 43 patients (91.5%) survived to discharge, of whom 28 (59.6%) completed antibiotic therapy. Relapsed IDU was observed in 33 patients (76.7%). Relapsed IDU trended toward significance among undomiciled patients (OR, 4.07,; 95% CI, 0.93–17.85; P = .06). Also, 24 patients (55.8%) were rehospitalized within 1 year due to infectious complications of IDU; undomiciled patients were readmitted more frequently (OR, 20.45; 95% CI, 1.09–383.99; P = .04). Completion of IDU-IE antibiotic therapy, relapse of IDU, and rehospitalization were not associated with prior AMA discharges, duration or variety of IDU, receipt of MAT during the index admission, or addiction medicine consultation. The rate of readmission due to an infectious complication of IDU within 1 year was unrelated to the proportion of hospital days where MAT was prescribed. Conclusions: In settings with high rates of addiction medicine consultation and in-hospital MAT administration, inpatient interventions targeting OUD may not necessarily be protective against morbidity and rehospitalization. Focusing on housing instability and outpatient continuation of MAT may be beneficial.

Funding: None

Disclosures: None

Type
Poster Presentations
Copyright
© 2020 by The Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America. All rights reserved.