开放性骨折预防性抗生素选择的相关结果。

Carol A Lin,Tim Kobes,Eric Kholodovsky,Giselle Hernandez,Nathan N O'Hara,Gregory M Schrank,Robert V O'Toole,Gerard P Slobogean,Sheila Sprague,Marilyn Heng,
{"title":"开放性骨折预防性抗生素选择的相关结果。","authors":"Carol A Lin,Tim Kobes,Eric Kholodovsky,Giselle Hernandez,Nathan N O'Hara,Gregory M Schrank,Robert V O'Toole,Gerard P Slobogean,Sheila Sprague,Marilyn Heng,","doi":"10.2106/jbjs.24.01123","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"BACKGROUND\r\nThe ideal antibiotic prophylaxis for open fractures is unknown. We evaluated outcomes following different antibiotic prophylaxis regimens for open fractures.\r\n\r\nMETHODS\r\nThis is a secondary analysis of data from PREP-IT. Prophylactic antibiotics were defined as any intravenous antibiotic given on the day of admission. The outcomes were surgical site infection (SSI) within 90 days and reoperation within 1 year. Logistic regression and an instrumental variable analysis that leveraged site-level variation accounted for confounding. Subgroup variation was evaluated by stratifying by Gustilo-Anderson classification (Types I and II versus III).\r\n\r\nRESULTS\r\nOf the 3,331 included participants, the mean age was 45 ± 18 years, 63% were male, 73% were White, 21% were Black, 2% were Asian, and 10% were Hispanic. Cefazolin monotherapy (58% of patients), ceftriaxone monotherapy (10%), and cefazolin plus gentamicin (6%) were the most common regimens. In the instrumental variable analysis, the odds of infection did not significantly differ with ceftriaxone use (odds ratio [OR], 1.24; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.70 to 2.20; p = 0.45) or cefazolin plus gentamicin use (OR, 0.25; 95% CI, 0.03 to 2.04; p = 0.20) compared with cefazolin monotherapy. There were no significant differences between the regimens with respect to infection when stratified by Gustilo-Anderson type. However, we did observe a nearly 3-fold increase in the odds of infection with ceftriaxone use compared with cefazolin monotherapy (OR, 2.73; 95% CI, 0.96 to 7.79; p = 0.06) in Type-I and II fractures, and a 75% decrease in the odds of infection with cefazolin plus gentamicin use (OR, 0.25; 95% CI, 0.03 to 2.02; p = 0.19) compared with cefazolin monotherapy in Type-III fractures.\r\n\r\nCONCLUSIONS\r\nAmong patients with open fractures, antibiotic prophylaxis with ceftriaxone monotherapy did not provide significant benefits compared with cefazolin monotherapy in preventing infection in Type-I and II fractures. The findings suggest that cefazolin plus gentamicin might reduce the odds of infection in Type-III fractures compared with cefazolin monotherapy, but this difference was not statistically significant.\r\n\r\nLEVEL OF EVIDENCE\r\nTherapeutic Level II. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.","PeriodicalId":22625,"journal":{"name":"The Journal of Bone & Joint Surgery","volume":"44 1","pages":"19-27"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-06-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Outcomes Associated with Choice of Prophylactic Antibiotics in Open Fractures.\",\"authors\":\"Carol A Lin,Tim Kobes,Eric Kholodovsky,Giselle Hernandez,Nathan N O'Hara,Gregory M Schrank,Robert V O'Toole,Gerard P Slobogean,Sheila Sprague,Marilyn Heng,\",\"doi\":\"10.2106/jbjs.24.01123\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"BACKGROUND\\r\\nThe ideal antibiotic prophylaxis for open fractures is unknown. We evaluated outcomes following different antibiotic prophylaxis regimens for open fractures.\\r\\n\\r\\nMETHODS\\r\\nThis is a secondary analysis of data from PREP-IT. Prophylactic antibiotics were defined as any intravenous antibiotic given on the day of admission. The outcomes were surgical site infection (SSI) within 90 days and reoperation within 1 year. Logistic regression and an instrumental variable analysis that leveraged site-level variation accounted for confounding. Subgroup variation was evaluated by stratifying by Gustilo-Anderson classification (Types I and II versus III).\\r\\n\\r\\nRESULTS\\r\\nOf the 3,331 included participants, the mean age was 45 ± 18 years, 63% were male, 73% were White, 21% were Black, 2% were Asian, and 10% were Hispanic. Cefazolin monotherapy (58% of patients), ceftriaxone monotherapy (10%), and cefazolin plus gentamicin (6%) were the most common regimens. In the instrumental variable analysis, the odds of infection did not significantly differ with ceftriaxone use (odds ratio [OR], 1.24; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.70 to 2.20; p = 0.45) or cefazolin plus gentamicin use (OR, 0.25; 95% CI, 0.03 to 2.04; p = 0.20) compared with cefazolin monotherapy. There were no significant differences between the regimens with respect to infection when stratified by Gustilo-Anderson type. However, we did observe a nearly 3-fold increase in the odds of infection with ceftriaxone use compared with cefazolin monotherapy (OR, 2.73; 95% CI, 0.96 to 7.79; p = 0.06) in Type-I and II fractures, and a 75% decrease in the odds of infection with cefazolin plus gentamicin use (OR, 0.25; 95% CI, 0.03 to 2.02; p = 0.19) compared with cefazolin monotherapy in Type-III fractures.\\r\\n\\r\\nCONCLUSIONS\\r\\nAmong patients with open fractures, antibiotic prophylaxis with ceftriaxone monotherapy did not provide significant benefits compared with cefazolin monotherapy in preventing infection in Type-I and II fractures. The findings suggest that cefazolin plus gentamicin might reduce the odds of infection in Type-III fractures compared with cefazolin monotherapy, but this difference was not statistically significant.\\r\\n\\r\\nLEVEL OF EVIDENCE\\r\\nTherapeutic Level II. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.\",\"PeriodicalId\":22625,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"The Journal of Bone & Joint Surgery\",\"volume\":\"44 1\",\"pages\":\"19-27\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-06-18\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"The Journal of Bone & Joint Surgery\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2106/jbjs.24.01123\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The Journal of Bone & Joint Surgery","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2106/jbjs.24.01123","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:开放性骨折理想的抗生素预防尚不清楚。我们评估了开放性骨折不同抗生素预防方案的结果。方法对PREP-IT数据进行二次分析。预防性抗生素定义为入院当天静脉给予的任何抗生素。结果为90天内手术部位感染(SSI), 1年内再次手术。逻辑回归和工具变量分析,利用场地水平的变化来解释混淆。通过gustillo - anderson分类(I型和II型与III型)对亚组差异进行分层评估。结果3331名参与者的平均年龄为45±18岁,63%为男性,73%为白人,21%为黑人,2%为亚洲人,10%为西班牙裔。头孢唑林单药治疗(58%的患者)、头孢曲松单药治疗(10%)和头孢唑林加庆大霉素(6%)是最常见的方案。在工具变量分析中,使用头孢曲松的感染几率无显著差异(优势比[OR], 1.24;95%置信区间[CI], 0.70 ~ 2.20;p = 0.45)或头孢唑林加庆大霉素(or, 0.25;95% CI, 0.03 ~ 2.04;P = 0.20)。当按Gustilo-Anderson型分层时,两种方案之间在感染方面没有显著差异。然而,我们确实观察到与头孢唑林单药治疗相比,头孢曲松感染的几率增加了近3倍(OR, 2.73;95% CI, 0.96 ~ 7.79;p = 0.06),头孢唑林加庆大霉素可使感染几率降低75% (OR, 0.25;95% CI, 0.03 ~ 2.02;p = 0.19)与头孢唑林单药治疗iii型骨折比较。结论在开放性骨折患者中,头孢曲松单药治疗与头孢唑林单药治疗相比,在预防i型和II型骨折感染方面没有明显的益处。研究结果表明,与头孢唑林单药治疗相比,头孢唑林联合庆大霉素可能降低iii型骨折感染的几率,但这种差异无统计学意义。证据水平:治疗性二级。有关证据水平的完整描述,请参见作者说明。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Outcomes Associated with Choice of Prophylactic Antibiotics in Open Fractures.
BACKGROUND The ideal antibiotic prophylaxis for open fractures is unknown. We evaluated outcomes following different antibiotic prophylaxis regimens for open fractures. METHODS This is a secondary analysis of data from PREP-IT. Prophylactic antibiotics were defined as any intravenous antibiotic given on the day of admission. The outcomes were surgical site infection (SSI) within 90 days and reoperation within 1 year. Logistic regression and an instrumental variable analysis that leveraged site-level variation accounted for confounding. Subgroup variation was evaluated by stratifying by Gustilo-Anderson classification (Types I and II versus III). RESULTS Of the 3,331 included participants, the mean age was 45 ± 18 years, 63% were male, 73% were White, 21% were Black, 2% were Asian, and 10% were Hispanic. Cefazolin monotherapy (58% of patients), ceftriaxone monotherapy (10%), and cefazolin plus gentamicin (6%) were the most common regimens. In the instrumental variable analysis, the odds of infection did not significantly differ with ceftriaxone use (odds ratio [OR], 1.24; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.70 to 2.20; p = 0.45) or cefazolin plus gentamicin use (OR, 0.25; 95% CI, 0.03 to 2.04; p = 0.20) compared with cefazolin monotherapy. There were no significant differences between the regimens with respect to infection when stratified by Gustilo-Anderson type. However, we did observe a nearly 3-fold increase in the odds of infection with ceftriaxone use compared with cefazolin monotherapy (OR, 2.73; 95% CI, 0.96 to 7.79; p = 0.06) in Type-I and II fractures, and a 75% decrease in the odds of infection with cefazolin plus gentamicin use (OR, 0.25; 95% CI, 0.03 to 2.02; p = 0.19) compared with cefazolin monotherapy in Type-III fractures. CONCLUSIONS Among patients with open fractures, antibiotic prophylaxis with ceftriaxone monotherapy did not provide significant benefits compared with cefazolin monotherapy in preventing infection in Type-I and II fractures. The findings suggest that cefazolin plus gentamicin might reduce the odds of infection in Type-III fractures compared with cefazolin monotherapy, but this difference was not statistically significant. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE Therapeutic Level II. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信