Lumbar Fusion Surgical Prophylaxis Using Cefazolin vs. Vancomycin in the Penicillin-Allergic Patient.

IF 2.6 2区 医学 Q2 CLINICAL NEUROLOGY
Spine Pub Date : 2024-10-30 DOI:10.1097/BRS.0000000000005200
Michael Carter, Rajkishen Narayanan, Gregory Toci, Rachel Huang, Jonathan Dalton, Alexa Tomlak, Yunsoo Lee, Shiraz Mumtaz, Matthew Sabitsky, Asad Pasha, Andrew Vanichkachorn, Andrew Kim, Amit Syal, Mark Kurd, Ian David Kaye, Jose Canseco, Alan Hilibrand, Alexander Vaccaro, Gregory Schroeder, Christopher Kepler
{"title":"Lumbar Fusion Surgical Prophylaxis Using Cefazolin vs. Vancomycin in the Penicillin-Allergic Patient.","authors":"Michael Carter, Rajkishen Narayanan, Gregory Toci, Rachel Huang, Jonathan Dalton, Alexa Tomlak, Yunsoo Lee, Shiraz Mumtaz, Matthew Sabitsky, Asad Pasha, Andrew Vanichkachorn, Andrew Kim, Amit Syal, Mark Kurd, Ian David Kaye, Jose Canseco, Alan Hilibrand, Alexander Vaccaro, Gregory Schroeder, Christopher Kepler","doi":"10.1097/BRS.0000000000005200","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Study design: </strong>Retrospective cohort study.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>To compare peri- and postoperative infection rates among patients with mild to moderate penicillin allergies who receive cefazolin vs vancomycin as prophylaxis for lumbar fusion. Additionally, we sought to determine if patients receiving cefazolin exhibited any clinical symptoms suggestive of drug-induced hypersensitivity reactions, and to compare those rates to patients who received vancomycin.</p><p><strong>Summary of background data: </strong>Cefazolin has been historically linked to hypersensitivity reactions in penicillin-allergic patients due to cross-reactivity. As a result, vancomycin is often given to these patients instead. To our knowledge, no studies have directly compared these two antibiotics in penicillin-allergic patients undergoing lumbar fusion.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Patients with mild to moderate documented penicillin allergies who underwent lumbar fusion from 2017-2022 and received prophylactic cefazolin or vancomycin were studied. Demographic, surgical information, and hospital length of stay (LOS) were recorded. We identified drug sensitivity reactions, in hospital infections, 90-day readmissions related to infectious etiologies and need for irrigation and debridement (I&D) to treat a surgical site infection.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>222 patients received cefazolin, while 180 received vancomycin. Patients receiving vancomycin had more medical comorbidities, while patients receiving cefazolin had slightly more levels fused. No significant differences existed between cohorts in postoperative infection rate. One patient given cefazolin developed a mild drug-induced skin reaction that was treated with topical steroids. No significant differences existed between cohorts in 90-day readmissions or need for I&D surgery. On bivariate analysis, patients given cefazolin had a longer LOS but this was attributed to confounding variables on multivariate analysis.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Cefazolin and vancomycin are comparable at preventing postoperative infections among patients with mild to moderate documented reactions to penicillin. Our findings also suggest that penicillin-allergic patients are not at higher risk of developing drug-related hypersensitivity reactions in response to cefazolin exposure when compared to those who received vancomycin.</p>","PeriodicalId":22193,"journal":{"name":"Spine","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Spine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0000000000005200","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Study design: Retrospective cohort study.

Objective: To compare peri- and postoperative infection rates among patients with mild to moderate penicillin allergies who receive cefazolin vs vancomycin as prophylaxis for lumbar fusion. Additionally, we sought to determine if patients receiving cefazolin exhibited any clinical symptoms suggestive of drug-induced hypersensitivity reactions, and to compare those rates to patients who received vancomycin.

Summary of background data: Cefazolin has been historically linked to hypersensitivity reactions in penicillin-allergic patients due to cross-reactivity. As a result, vancomycin is often given to these patients instead. To our knowledge, no studies have directly compared these two antibiotics in penicillin-allergic patients undergoing lumbar fusion.

Methods: Patients with mild to moderate documented penicillin allergies who underwent lumbar fusion from 2017-2022 and received prophylactic cefazolin or vancomycin were studied. Demographic, surgical information, and hospital length of stay (LOS) were recorded. We identified drug sensitivity reactions, in hospital infections, 90-day readmissions related to infectious etiologies and need for irrigation and debridement (I&D) to treat a surgical site infection.

Results: 222 patients received cefazolin, while 180 received vancomycin. Patients receiving vancomycin had more medical comorbidities, while patients receiving cefazolin had slightly more levels fused. No significant differences existed between cohorts in postoperative infection rate. One patient given cefazolin developed a mild drug-induced skin reaction that was treated with topical steroids. No significant differences existed between cohorts in 90-day readmissions or need for I&D surgery. On bivariate analysis, patients given cefazolin had a longer LOS but this was attributed to confounding variables on multivariate analysis.

Conclusions: Cefazolin and vancomycin are comparable at preventing postoperative infections among patients with mild to moderate documented reactions to penicillin. Our findings also suggest that penicillin-allergic patients are not at higher risk of developing drug-related hypersensitivity reactions in response to cefazolin exposure when compared to those who received vancomycin.

青霉素过敏患者使用头孢唑啉和万古霉素进行腰椎融合手术预防治疗
研究设计回顾性队列研究:比较轻度至中度青霉素过敏患者在腰椎融合术中接受头孢唑啉与万古霉素预防治疗的围手术期和术后感染率。此外,我们还试图确定接受头孢唑啉治疗的患者是否表现出任何提示药物过敏反应的临床症状,并将这些感染率与接受万古霉素治疗的患者进行比较:由于交叉反应,头孢唑啉一直与青霉素过敏患者的超敏反应有关。因此,这些患者通常会改用万古霉素。据我们所知,还没有研究对接受腰椎融合术的青霉素过敏患者使用这两种抗生素进行直接比较:研究对象为2017-2022年期间接受腰椎融合术并接受预防性头孢唑啉或万古霉素治疗的轻度至中度青霉素过敏患者。记录了人口统计学、手术信息和住院时间(LOS)。我们确定了药物敏感反应、院内感染、与感染病因相关的90天再入院率以及治疗手术部位感染的灌洗和清创(I&D)需求。结果:222名患者接受了头孢唑啉,180名患者接受了万古霉素。接受万古霉素治疗的患者合并症较多,而接受头孢唑啉治疗的患者融合程度略高。两组患者的术后感染率没有明显差异。一名服用头孢唑啉的患者出现了轻微的药物性皮肤反应,经局部类固醇治疗后好转。在 90 天再入院或需要进行 I&D 手术方面,各组间无明显差异。双变量分析显示,使用头孢唑啉的患者住院时间更长,但多变量分析显示,这是由于混杂变量造成的:结论:头孢唑啉和万古霉素在预防对青霉素有轻度至中度反应的患者术后感染方面效果相当。我们的研究结果还表明,与接受万古霉素治疗的患者相比,对青霉素过敏的患者因接触头孢唑啉而发生药物相关超敏反应的风险并不高。
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
Spine
Spine 医学-临床神经学
CiteScore
5.90
自引率
6.70%
发文量
361
审稿时长
6.0 months
期刊介绍: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins is a leading international publisher of professional health information for physicians, nurses, specialized clinicians and students. For a complete listing of titles currently published by Lippincott Williams & Wilkins and detailed information about print, online, and other offerings, please visit the LWW Online Store. Recognized internationally as the leading journal in its field, Spine is an international, peer-reviewed, bi-weekly periodical that considers for publication original articles in the field of Spine. It is the leading subspecialty journal for the treatment of spinal disorders. Only original papers are considered for publication with the understanding that they are contributed solely to Spine. The Journal does not publish articles reporting material that has been reported at length elsewhere.
×
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