The Journal of bone and joint surgery. American volume · 2021
A Simple Algorithmic Approach Allows the Safe Use of Cephalosporin in "Penicillin-Allergic" Patients without the Need for Allergy Testing.
СтатьяНаблюдательное исследованиеНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Goh Graham S, Shohat Noam, Austin Matthew S
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Patients who report a penicillin allergy are often given second-line antibiotic prophylaxis during total joint arthroplasty (TJA), with only a minority of patients undergoing additional consultations and allergy testing. In an effort to increase the use of cephalosporin prophylaxis in TJA, the present study aimed to assess the effectiveness of a simple, protocol-driven penicillin allergy screening program without the need for additional work-up.
METHODS: Following implementation of a questionnaire-based screening protocol in May 2019, all patients scheduled for primary TJA were risk-stratified into low or high-risk categories. The low-risk cohort received cefazolin, and the high-risk cohort received non-cefazolin antibiotics. Patients were monitored prospectively, and data on antibiotic usage and adverse outcomes were documented. The protocol group (n = 2,078) was propensity score matched 1:1 with a control group that included patients who underwent TJA in the same institution prior to implementation of the protocol. The primary end point was the efficacy of the protocol in reducing unnecessary use of non-cephalosporin antibiotics for prophylaxis. Secondary outcomes included the rate of surgical site infections and allergic reactions to the administered antibiotic.
RESULTS: A total of 357 patients (17.2%) reported a penicillin allergy in the protocol group compared with 310 patients (14.9%) with a recorded allergy in the control group (p = 0.052). The number of patients who received non-cephalosporin antibiotics was significantly lower in the protocol group (5.7% compared with 15.2% in the control group; p < 0.001), whereas there was no difference in the rate of total allergic reactions (0.8% compared with 0.7%, respectively; p = 0.857). Of the 239 low-risk patients (66.9%) in the protocol group, only 3 (1.3%) experienced a mild cutaneous reaction following cefazolin administration. There were no differences in the rates of superficial wound, deep periprosthetic, or Clostridioides difficile infections between the protocol and control groups.
CONCLUSIONS: A simple screening protocol allowed two-thirds of patients with a self-reported allergy to receive cefazolin without the need for additional consultations or testing. We believe this protocol can be safely implemented to increase the rate of cefazolin usage without a corresponding increase in the number of allergic reactions.
LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic Level II. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.
METHODS: Following implementation of a questionnaire-based screening protocol in May 2019, all patients scheduled for primary TJA were risk-stratified into low or high-risk categories. The low-risk cohort received cefazolin, and the high-risk cohort received non-cefazolin antibiotics. Patients were monitored prospectively, and data on antibiotic usage and adverse outcomes were documented. The protocol group (n = 2,078) was propensity score matched 1:1 with a control group that included patients who underwent TJA in the same institution prior to implementation of the protocol. The primary end point was the efficacy of the protocol in reducing unnecessary use of non-cephalosporin antibiotics for prophylaxis. Secondary outcomes included the rate of surgical site infections and allergic reactions to the administered antibiotic.
RESULTS: A total of 357 patients (17.2%) reported a penicillin allergy in the protocol group compared with 310 patients (14.9%) with a recorded allergy in the control group (p = 0.052). The number of patients who received non-cephalosporin antibiotics was significantly lower in the protocol group (5.7% compared with 15.2% in the control group; p < 0.001), whereas there was no difference in the rate of total allergic reactions (0.8% compared with 0.7%, respectively; p = 0.857). Of the 239 low-risk patients (66.9%) in the protocol group, only 3 (1.3%) experienced a mild cutaneous reaction following cefazolin administration. There were no differences in the rates of superficial wound, deep periprosthetic, or Clostridioides difficile infections between the protocol and control groups.
CONCLUSIONS: A simple screening protocol allowed two-thirds of patients with a self-reported allergy to receive cefazolin without the need for additional consultations or testing. We believe this protocol can be safely implemented to increase the rate of cefazolin usage without a corresponding increase in the number of allergic reactions.
LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic Level II. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.