Perioperative Cefazolin for Total Joint Arthroplasty Patients Who Have a Penicillin Allergy: Is It Safe?

IF 3.4 2区 医学 Q1 ORTHOPEDICS
{"title":"Perioperative Cefazolin for Total Joint Arthroplasty Patients Who Have a Penicillin Allergy: Is It Safe?","authors":"","doi":"10.1016/j.arth.2024.04.058","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><p>Cefazolin is the standard of care for perioperative antibiotic prophylaxis in total joint arthroplasty (TJA) in the United States. The potential allergic cross-reactivity between cefazolin and penicillin causes uncertainty regarding optimal antibiotic choice in patients who have a reported penicillin allergy (rPCNA). The purpose of this study was to determine the safety of perioperative cefazolin in PCNA patients undergoing primary TJA.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>We identified all patients (n = 49,842) undergoing primary total hip arthroplasty (n = 25,659) or total knee arthroplasty (n = 24,183) from 2016 to 2022 who received perioperative intravenous antibiotic prophylaxis. Patients who had an rPCNA (n = 5,508) who received cefazolin (n = 4,938, 89.7%) were compared to rPCNA patients who did not (n = 570, 10.3%), and to patients who did not have an rPCNA (n = 43,359). The primary outcome was the rate of allergic reactions within 72 hours postoperatively. Secondary outcomes included the rates of superficial infections, deep infections, and <em>Clostridioides difficile</em> infections within 90 days.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>The rate of allergic reactions was 0.1% (n = 5) in rPCNA patients who received cefazolin, compared to 0.2% (n = 1) in rPCNA patients who did not (<em>P</em> = .48) and 0.02% (n = 11) in patients who have no rPCNA (<em>P</em> = .02). Allergic reactions were mild in all 5 rPCNA patients who received cefazolin and were characterized by cutaneous symptoms (n = 4) or dyspnea in the absence of respiratory distress (n = 1) that resolved promptly with antibiotic discontinuation and administration of antihistamines and/or corticosteroids. We observed no differences in the rates of superficial infections (0.1 versus 0.2%, <em>P</em> = .58), deep infections (0.3 versus 0.4%, <em>P</em> = .68), or <em>C difficile</em> infections (0.04% versus 0%, <em>P</em> = .99) within 90 days in rPCNA patients who received cefazolin versus alternative perioperative antibiotics.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><p>In this series of more than 5,500 patients who had an rPCNA undergoing primary TJA, perioperative prophylaxis with cefazolin resulted in a 0.1% incidence of allergic reactions that were clinically indolent. Cefazolin can be safely administered to most patients, independent of rPCNA severity.</p></div><div><h3>Level of Evidence</h3><p>III.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":51077,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Arthroplasty","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0883540324003814/pdfft?md5=1f43d57bd9ff37c9881220ed6e06a00e&pid=1-s2.0-S0883540324003814-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Arthroplasty","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0883540324003814","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ORTHOPEDICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background

Cefazolin is the standard of care for perioperative antibiotic prophylaxis in total joint arthroplasty (TJA) in the United States. The potential allergic cross-reactivity between cefazolin and penicillin causes uncertainty regarding optimal antibiotic choice in patients who have a reported penicillin allergy (rPCNA). The purpose of this study was to determine the safety of perioperative cefazolin in PCNA patients undergoing primary TJA.

Methods

We identified all patients (n = 49,842) undergoing primary total hip arthroplasty (n = 25,659) or total knee arthroplasty (n = 24,183) from 2016 to 2022 who received perioperative intravenous antibiotic prophylaxis. Patients who had an rPCNA (n = 5,508) who received cefazolin (n = 4,938, 89.7%) were compared to rPCNA patients who did not (n = 570, 10.3%), and to patients who did not have an rPCNA (n = 43,359). The primary outcome was the rate of allergic reactions within 72 hours postoperatively. Secondary outcomes included the rates of superficial infections, deep infections, and Clostridioides difficile infections within 90 days.

Results

The rate of allergic reactions was 0.1% (n = 5) in rPCNA patients who received cefazolin, compared to 0.2% (n = 1) in rPCNA patients who did not (P = .48) and 0.02% (n = 11) in patients who have no rPCNA (P = .02). Allergic reactions were mild in all 5 rPCNA patients who received cefazolin and were characterized by cutaneous symptoms (n = 4) or dyspnea in the absence of respiratory distress (n = 1) that resolved promptly with antibiotic discontinuation and administration of antihistamines and/or corticosteroids. We observed no differences in the rates of superficial infections (0.1 versus 0.2%, P = .58), deep infections (0.3 versus 0.4%, P = .68), or C difficile infections (0.04% versus 0%, P = .99) within 90 days in rPCNA patients who received cefazolin versus alternative perioperative antibiotics.

Conclusions

In this series of more than 5,500 patients who had an rPCNA undergoing primary TJA, perioperative prophylaxis with cefazolin resulted in a 0.1% incidence of allergic reactions that were clinically indolent. Cefazolin can be safely administered to most patients, independent of rPCNA severity.

Level of Evidence

III.

对青霉素过敏的全关节置换术患者围手术期使用头孢唑啉:安全吗?
背景头孢唑啉是美国全关节置换术(TJA)围术期抗生素预防的标准疗法。头孢唑啉和青霉素之间潜在的过敏交叉反应导致对青霉素过敏(rPCNA)的患者无法确定最佳抗生素选择。本研究旨在确定接受初级 TJA 的 PCNA 患者围手术期使用头孢唑啉的安全性。方法我们确定了 2016 年至 2022 年期间接受初级全髋关节置换术(n = 25659)或全膝关节置换术(n = 24183)的所有患者(n = 49842),这些患者均接受了围手术期静脉注射抗生素预防。将接受头孢唑啉治疗的 rPCNA 患者(n = 5,508 例)(n = 4,938 例,89.7%)与未接受 rPCNA 治疗的患者(n = 570 例,10.3%)以及未接受 rPCNA 治疗的患者(n = 43,359 例)进行比较。主要结果是术后 72 小时内的过敏反应发生率。结果接受头孢唑啉治疗的 rPCNA 患者过敏反应发生率为 0.1%(n = 5),而未接受 rPCNA 治疗的患者过敏反应发生率为 0.2%(n = 1)(P = 0.48),未接受 rPCNA 治疗的患者过敏反应发生率为 0.02%(n = 11)(P = 0.02)。接受头孢唑啉治疗的 5 例 rPCNA 患者的过敏反应均较轻微,主要表现为皮肤症状(4 例)或呼吸困难(1 例),停用抗组胺药和/或皮质类固醇药物后即可缓解。我们观察到,在接受头孢唑啉与其他围手术期抗生素治疗的 rPCNA 患者中,90 天内浅表感染率(0.1% 对 0.2%,P = .58)、深部感染率(0.3% 对 0.4%,P = .68)或艰难梭菌感染率(0.04% 对 0%,P = .99)均无差异。结论 在这一系列超过 5500 名接受初级 TJA 的 rPCNA 患者中,围手术期预防性使用头孢唑啉导致的过敏反应发生率为 0.1%,且临床症状不明显。大多数患者都可以安全使用头孢唑啉,与 rPCNA 的严重程度无关。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Journal of Arthroplasty
Journal of Arthroplasty 医学-整形外科
CiteScore
7.00
自引率
20.00%
发文量
734
审稿时长
48 days
期刊介绍: The Journal of Arthroplasty brings together the clinical and scientific foundations for joint replacement. This peer-reviewed journal publishes original research and manuscripts of the highest quality from all areas relating to joint replacement or the treatment of its complications, including those dealing with clinical series and experience, prosthetic design, biomechanics, biomaterials, metallurgy, biologic response to arthroplasty materials in vivo and in vitro.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信