Dataset Information

Antibiotic Stewardship Interventions Improve Choice of Antibiotic Prophylaxis in Total Joint Arthroplasty in Patients with Reported Penicillin Allergies.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Most patients who report a penicillin allergy can tolerate cefazolin, the preferred prophylaxis in a total joint arthroplasty (TJA). Regardless, patients with a reported penicillin allergy are less likely to receive first-line perioperative antibiotics as a result of inaccurate penicillin allergy documentation and misconceptions regarding cross-reactivity between penicillin and cephalosporins. The over-reporting of penicillin allergies and the safety of cephalosporins in patients with reported penicillin allergies have been well established throughout the evidence [13].

Questions/purposes

The study sought to answer two questions: (1) Do antibiotic stewardship interventions improve adherence to appropriate prophylactic antibiotic usage in patients with a documented penicillin allergy undergoing primary TJA? (2) What is the risk of allergic or adverse reactions secondary to cefazolin use in patients with a documented penicillin allergy?

Methods

This was a single-center, retrospective study of orthopaedic patients older than 18 years who underwent a primary elective TJA at a 261-bed community hospital. The study had two periods: the preintervention period ran from March 1, 2017 to August 30, 2017 and the postintervention period was from March 1, 2019 to August 30, 2019. A total of 396 patients with a history of a documented penicillin allergy underwent a THA or TKA during the study periods. After reviewing every fourth patient with a history of a documented penicillin allergy who met study inclusion criteria and excluding those patients who had a codocumented cephalosporin allergy, a total of 180 patients with a documented penicillin allergy were evaluated (90 patients in the preintervention group and 90 patients in the postintervention group). To answer our first study question, regarding whether antibiotic stewardship interventions improve adherence to appropriate prophylactic antibiotic usage in patients with a documented penicillin allergy undergoing primary TJA, we evaluated appropriate antibiotic usage pre- and postintervention. To answer our second study question, concerning the risk of allergic or adverse reactions secondary to cefazolin use in patients with a documented penicillin allergy, we reviewed signs of allergic reactions in patients who received cefazolin for a primary TJA and had a documented penicillin allergy.

Results

Postintervention antibiotic use was more appropriate (91% [82 of 90] versus 54% [49 of 90], risk ratio 1.67 [95% confidence interval 1.37 to 2.04]; p < 0.01), particularly in patients with nonsevere allergy (preintervention: 47% [36 of 76] versus postintervention: 96% [76 of 79]; p < 0.01). No patients had signs of an allergic reaction related to cefazolin, including eight patients with severe penicillin allergy.

Conclusion

A multifaceted antibiotic stewardship intervention increased the appropriateness of antibiotic prophylaxis in elective primary TJA. Patients with nonsevere penicillin allergies, even those reporting hives or local swelling, tolerated cefazolin. Antibiotic stewardship interventions can be implemented across institutions to expand cephalosporin use in patients with a reported penicillin allergy within orthopaedic TJA patients.

Level of evidence

Level III, therapeutic study.

SUBMITTER: Jones R

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8208396 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundSurgical site infection (SSI) and venous thromboembolism (VTE) are associated with high burden and cost and are considered largely preventable following total knee or hip arthroplasty (TKA, THA). The risk of developing VTE and SSI is reduced when prophylaxis is compliant with evidence-based clinical guidelines. However, the association between VTE and antibiotic prophylaxis clinical guideline compliance and patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) after THA/TKA is unknown. This study aims to explore whether care that is non-compliant with VTE and antibiotic guideline recommendations is associated with PROMs (Oxford Hip/Knee Score and EQ-5D Index scores) at 90- and 365-days after surgery.MethodsThis prospective observational study included high-volume arthroplasty public and private sites and consenting eligible participants undergoing elective primary THA/TKA. We conducted multiple linear regression and linear mixed-effects modelling to explore the associations between non-compliance with VTE and antibiotic guidelines, and PROMs.ResultsThe sample included 1838 participants. Compliance with VTE and antibiotic guidelines was 35% and 13.2% respectively. In adjusted modelling, non-compliance with VTE guidelines was not associated with 90-day Oxford score (β = - 0.54, standard error [SE] = 0.34, p = 0.112) but was significantly associated with lower (worse) 365-day Oxford score (β = - 0.76, SE = 0.29, p = 0.009), lower EQ-5D Index scores at 90- (β = - 0.02 SE = 0.008, p = 0.011) and 365-days (β = - 0.03, SE = 0.008, p = 0.002).. The changes in Oxford and EQ-5D Index scores were not clinically important. Noncompliance with antibiotic guidelines was not associated with either PROM at 90- (Oxford: β = - 0.45, standard error [SE] = 0.47, p = 0.341; EQ-5D: β = - 0.001, SE = 0.011, p = 0.891) or 365-days (Oxford score: β = - 0.06, SE = 0.41, p = 0.880 EQ-5D: β = - 0.010, SE = 0.012, p = 0.383). Results were consistent when complications were included in the model and in linear mixed-effects modelling with the insurance sector as a random effect.ConclusionsNon-compliance with VTE prophylaxis guidelines, but not antibiotic guidelines, is associated with statistically significant but not clinically meaningful differences in Oxford scores and EQ-5D Index scores at 365 days.

Project description:BackgroundTotal joint arthroplasty (TJA) registries traditionally have focused on implant longevity and rates of revision surgery. Registries would benefit from the addition of standardized patient-reported outcomes (PROs) such as pain relief and improved physical function. However, PROs have not been routinely adopted, and their incorporation into TJA registries presents challenges.Questions/purposesWe review current PRO use by existing national registries, challenges to integrating PROs in national registries, lessons from national registries that have integrated PROs, and suggestions to guide future adoption of PROs.MethodsWe conducted a literature search of papers addressing PRO use in national knee and hip arthroplasty registries, resulting in 15 articles. These publications were supplemented by discussions with thought leaders from international registries. WHERE ARE WE NOW?: Some national TJA registries are collecting PROs and valuable research is emerging. However, challenges exist, such as selecting suitable PROs, selection bias in countries without government-mandated participation for all hospitals, and challenges with missing data. WHERE DO WE NEED TO GO?: The ideal system will incorporate PROs into TJA registries. In so doing, it will be important to choose suitable PROs and develop innovative methods to collect PROs to ensure complete data and sustainability. HOW DO WE GET THERE?: New methods are required to meet the challenges related to registry design, logistics of PRO collection, and registry cost and sustainability. Modifications to the traditional hospital- and implant-centric design and new procedures to collect complete data from both patients and clinicians may be necessary. For instance, England and Wales, New Zealand, and Sweden developed methods to collect PROs after TJA directly from patients and a US TJA registry collects PROs as the primary outcome. Finally, to assure long-term sustainability, PRO data must be valuable to multiple stakeholders, including patients, clinicians, researchers, and policy makers.

Project description:BackgroundDespite widely reported success associated with hip and knee replacements, some patients remain dissatisfied with their outcomes. Patient activation, an individual's propensity to engage in adaptive health behaviors, has been measured as a potentially important factor contributing to health outcomes, cost, and patient experience of care. However, to our knowledge, it has not been studied in patients undergoing total joint arthroplasties (TJAs).Questions/purposesWe wanted to determine whether patients with higher activation scores would experience (1) greater resolution of pain and improved activity, (2) greater improvements in postoperative physical and mental health, and (3) greater patient satisfaction after primary THA or TKA.MethodsWe approached 174 patients and enrolled 135 who were undergoing primary THA or TKA at one of two hospitals between January 2013 and May 2014. Patient Activation Measure (PAM) scores were obtained preoperatively and patient-reported outcomes were assessed and completed for 125 patients pre- and postoperatively at the 6- or 12-month visit. We assessed pain and activity with the Hip Disability and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (HOOS), Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS), and University of California Los Angeles (UCLA) activity scores. We measured physical and mental health by calculating SF12v2® scores and measured patient satisfaction with the Hip and Knee Satisfaction Scale (HKSS). Linear regression models were used to test the association between baseline PAM and postoperative patient-reported outcomes.ResultsOverall, patients with a higher baseline PAM score experienced better pain relief using the HOOS/KOOS pain scores (R2=0.311, p=0.048) and symptoms using the HOOS/KOOS symptom scores (R2=0.272, p=0.021). In addition, higher PAM scores were associated with better postoperative mental health using the SF12v2® (R2=0.057, p<0.001), but were not associated with higher physical health (R2=0.176, p=0.173). Finally, higher PAM scores were associated with having greater postoperative satisfaction after surgery using the HKSS questionnaire (R2=0.048, p=0.023).ConclusionsHigher preoperative patient activation was associated with better pain relief, decreased symptoms, improved mental health, and greater satisfaction after TJA. Future efforts should be aimed at studying if improving patient activation before surgery results in better patient-reported outcomes after elective THA or TKA.Level of evidenceLevel II, prognostic study.

Project description:BACKGROUND:To prevent postoperative infection the use of systemic antibiotic prophylaxis is common ground. Type of antibiotic used and duration of prophylaxis are subject to debate. In case of suspected early periprosthetic infection a debridement, antibiotics and implant retention (DAIR) procedure is treatment of first choice. This study evaluated the antibiotic prophylaxis and DAIR treatment protocols nationwide as well as reporting of these DAIR procedures to the national joint registry. METHODS:All institutions that performed total hip or knee arthroplasty were contacted to complete a 16-question online survey. Questions included availability of a protocol, type and duration of antibiotic prophylaxis used and tendency to register infectious complications in the Dutch Arthroplasty Register. RESULTS:All ninety-nine consulted institutions responded to this survey. All but one institutions have a standardized hospital based protocol for antibiotic prophylaxis in primary total hip or knee arthroplasty. Cefazolin was antibiotic prophylaxis of choice in ninety-four institutions for both primary hip and knee arthroplasty. In ten institutions one preoperative gift of antibiotic prophylaxis was administered. A protocol describing treatment when suspecting early periprosthetic joint infection was present in seventy-one institutions. When performing a DAIR procedure modular parts were exchanged in seventy institutions in case of a hip prosthesis and in eighty-one institutions in case of a knee prosthesis. Sixty-three institutions register DAIR procedures in the Dutch Arthroplasty Register. INTERPRETATION:In contradiction to the results of a recent study in Great Britain, we have found only little variety in availability of protocols and in the type of antibiotic used as prophylaxis in primary total hip and knee arthroplasty in The Netherlands. Not every institution has a protocol for treatment in suspicion of early infection. Although mobile parts are exchanged in the majority of cases, there appears to be an underreporting of DAIR procedures in the Dutch Arthroplasty Register.