External validation of the HANDOC score–high sensitivity to identify patients with non-beta-haemolytic streptococcal endocarditis

9Citations
Citations of this article
15Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

This article is free to access.

Abstract

Background: Invasive infections with non-beta-haemolytic streptococci (NBHS) is quite common and presents the clinicians with difficulties regarding which patients are at risk for infective endocarditis (IE). The HANDOC score was developed to identify patients with NBHS bacteraemia who are at low risk of IE. This study was conducted to validate HANDOC in an external cohort. Methods: Patients with NBHS in blood cultures between March and September 2016 in a Danish centre were included as part of an on-going study. Patient characteristics were collected to classify bacteria according to Dukés criteria and the components of the HANDOC score were collected retrospectively from the patients’ medical records. Results: 68 patients were included in the cohort, of which 16 fulfilled Dukés criteria for IE. All patients with IE (16 of 16) had a HANDOC score above the predefined cut-off. Cases of IE were found in patients with. Streptococcus mitis, Streptococcus bovis, Streptococcus mutans, Streptococcus anginosus, and Streptococcus sanguinis group streptococci. The HANDOC score thus had a sensitivity of 100% and a specificity of 62% in this cohort. Conclusions: HANDOC has a sensitivity of 100% and a relatively high specificity (62%) also in a prospectively enrolled cohort of patients from another country than its origin. This indicates that HANDOC can be implemented in clinical practice to identify patients with a low risk of IE in whom echocardiography can be omitted.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Sunnerhagen, T., Højgaard Andersen, M., Bruun, N. E., Bundgaard, H., Iversen, K. K., & Rasmussen, M. (2020). External validation of the HANDOC score–high sensitivity to identify patients with non-beta-haemolytic streptococcal endocarditis. Infectious Diseases, 52(1), 54–57. https://doi.org/10.1080/23744235.2019.1679388

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free