Gregory S Kazarian, Jung K Mok, Mitchell Johnson, Yusef Y Jordan, Takashi Hirase, Tejas Subramanian, Barry Brause, Han Jo Kim
{"title":"使用万古霉素预防围手术期感染是脊柱手术深部手术部位感染的重要风险因素。","authors":"Gregory S Kazarian, Jung K Mok, Mitchell Johnson, Yusef Y Jordan, Takashi Hirase, Tejas Subramanian, Barry Brause, Han Jo Kim","doi":"10.1097/BRS.0000000000005081","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Study design: </strong>Retrospective cohort.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>The purpose of this study was to compare the efficacy of cefazolin versus vancomycin for perioperative infection prophylaxis.</p><p><strong>Summary of background data: </strong>The relative efficacy of cefazolin alternatives for perioperative infection prophylaxis is poorly understood.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>This study was a single-center multisurgeon retrospective review of all patients undergoing primary spine surgery from an institutional registry. Postoperative infection was defined by the combination of three criteria: irrigation and debridement within 3 months of the index procedure, clinical suspicion for infection, and positive intraoperative cultures. Microbiology records for all infections were reviewed to assess the infectious organism and organism susceptibilities. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 10,122 patients met inclusion criteria. The overall incidence of infection was 0.78%, with an incidence of 0.73% in patients who received cefazolin and 2.03% in patients who received vancomycin (OR: 2.83, 95% CI: 1.35-5.91, P= 0.004). Use of IV vancomycin (OR: 2.83, 95% CI: 1.35-5.91, P =0.006), BMI (MD: 1.56, 95% CI: 0.32-2.79, P =0.014), presence of a fusion (OR: 1.62, 95% CI: 1.04-2.52, P =0.033), and operative time (MD: 42.04, 95% CI: 16.88-67.21, P =0.001) were significant risk factors in the univariate analysis. In the multivariate analysis, only noncefazolin antibiotics (OR: 2.48, 95% CI: 1.18-5.22, P =0.017) and BMI (MD: 1.56, 95% CI: 0.32-2.79, P =0.026) remained significant independent risk factors. Neither IV antibiotic regimen nor topical vancomycin significantly impacted Gram type, organism type, or antibiotic resistance ( P >0.05). The most common reason for antibiosis with vancomycin was a penicillin allergy (75.0%).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Prophylactic antibiosis with IV vancomycin leads to a 2.5 times higher risk of infection compared with IV cefazolin in primary spine surgery. We recommend the routine use of IV cefazolin for infection prophylaxis, and caution against the elective use of alternative regimens like IV vancomycin unless clinically warranted.</p>","PeriodicalId":22193,"journal":{"name":"Spine","volume":" ","pages":"1583-1590"},"PeriodicalIF":2.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Perioperative Infection Prophylaxis With Vancomycin is a Significant Risk Factor for Deep Surgical Site Infection in Spine Surgery.\",\"authors\":\"Gregory S Kazarian, Jung K Mok, Mitchell Johnson, Yusef Y Jordan, Takashi Hirase, Tejas Subramanian, Barry Brause, Han Jo Kim\",\"doi\":\"10.1097/BRS.0000000000005081\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Study design: </strong>Retrospective cohort.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>The purpose of this study was to compare the efficacy of cefazolin versus vancomycin for perioperative infection prophylaxis.</p><p><strong>Summary of background data: </strong>The relative efficacy of cefazolin alternatives for perioperative infection prophylaxis is poorly understood.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>This study was a single-center multisurgeon retrospective review of all patients undergoing primary spine surgery from an institutional registry. Postoperative infection was defined by the combination of three criteria: irrigation and debridement within 3 months of the index procedure, clinical suspicion for infection, and positive intraoperative cultures. Microbiology records for all infections were reviewed to assess the infectious organism and organism susceptibilities. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 10,122 patients met inclusion criteria. The overall incidence of infection was 0.78%, with an incidence of 0.73% in patients who received cefazolin and 2.03% in patients who received vancomycin (OR: 2.83, 95% CI: 1.35-5.91, P= 0.004). Use of IV vancomycin (OR: 2.83, 95% CI: 1.35-5.91, P =0.006), BMI (MD: 1.56, 95% CI: 0.32-2.79, P =0.014), presence of a fusion (OR: 1.62, 95% CI: 1.04-2.52, P =0.033), and operative time (MD: 42.04, 95% CI: 16.88-67.21, P =0.001) were significant risk factors in the univariate analysis. In the multivariate analysis, only noncefazolin antibiotics (OR: 2.48, 95% CI: 1.18-5.22, P =0.017) and BMI (MD: 1.56, 95% CI: 0.32-2.79, P =0.026) remained significant independent risk factors. Neither IV antibiotic regimen nor topical vancomycin significantly impacted Gram type, organism type, or antibiotic resistance ( P >0.05). The most common reason for antibiosis with vancomycin was a penicillin allergy (75.0%).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Prophylactic antibiosis with IV vancomycin leads to a 2.5 times higher risk of infection compared with IV cefazolin in primary spine surgery. We recommend the routine use of IV cefazolin for infection prophylaxis, and caution against the elective use of alternative regimens like IV vancomycin unless clinically warranted.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":22193,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Spine\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"1583-1590\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-11-15\",\"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.0000000000005081\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/7/2 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Spine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0000000000005081","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/7/2 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
研究设计回顾性队列研究:本研究旨在比较头孢唑啉与万古霉素在围手术期预防感染的疗效:对头孢唑啉替代品在围手术期预防感染的相对疗效了解甚少:本研究是一项单中心多外科医师回顾性研究,研究对象是机构登记册中所有接受初级脊柱手术的患者。术后感染由三个标准组合而成:指数手术后 3 个月内进行冲洗和清创、临床怀疑感染以及术中培养阳性。对所有感染的微生物学记录进行审查,以评估感染病原体和病原体的敏感性。进行了单变量和多变量分析:共有10122名患者符合纳入标准。感染总发生率为 0.78%,其中接受头孢唑啉治疗的患者感染率为 0.73%,接受万古霉素治疗的患者感染率为 2.03%(OR 2.83,95% CI 1.35-5.91,P-0.004)。在单变量分析中,静脉注射万古霉素(OR 2.83,95% CI 1.35-5.91,P=0.006)、体重指数(MD 1.56,95% CI 0.32-2.79,P=0.014)、有无融合(OR 1.62,95% CI 1.04-2.52,P=0.033)和手术时间(MD 42.04,95% CI 16.88-67.21,P=0.001)是重要的风险因素。在多变量分析中,只有非西唑啉类抗生素(OR 2.48,95% CI 1.18-5.22,P=0.017)和体重指数(MD 1.56,95% CI 0.32-2.79,P=0.026)仍是重要的独立风险因素。静脉注射抗生素方案和局部使用万古霉素对革兰氏类型、生物类型或抗生素耐药性均无明显影响(P>0.05)。使用万古霉素抗生素的最常见原因是青霉素过敏(75.0%):结论:在初级脊柱手术中,静脉注射万古霉素预防性抗生素比静脉注射头孢唑啉导致感染的风险高 2.5 倍。我们建议常规使用静脉注射头孢唑啉预防感染,并告诫除非临床需要,否则不要选择使用静脉注射万古霉素等替代方案。
Perioperative Infection Prophylaxis With Vancomycin is a Significant Risk Factor for Deep Surgical Site Infection in Spine Surgery.
Study design: Retrospective cohort.
Objective: The purpose of this study was to compare the efficacy of cefazolin versus vancomycin for perioperative infection prophylaxis.
Summary of background data: The relative efficacy of cefazolin alternatives for perioperative infection prophylaxis is poorly understood.
Materials and methods: This study was a single-center multisurgeon retrospective review of all patients undergoing primary spine surgery from an institutional registry. Postoperative infection was defined by the combination of three criteria: irrigation and debridement within 3 months of the index procedure, clinical suspicion for infection, and positive intraoperative cultures. Microbiology records for all infections were reviewed to assess the infectious organism and organism susceptibilities. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed.
Results: A total of 10,122 patients met inclusion criteria. The overall incidence of infection was 0.78%, with an incidence of 0.73% in patients who received cefazolin and 2.03% in patients who received vancomycin (OR: 2.83, 95% CI: 1.35-5.91, P= 0.004). Use of IV vancomycin (OR: 2.83, 95% CI: 1.35-5.91, P =0.006), BMI (MD: 1.56, 95% CI: 0.32-2.79, P =0.014), presence of a fusion (OR: 1.62, 95% CI: 1.04-2.52, P =0.033), and operative time (MD: 42.04, 95% CI: 16.88-67.21, P =0.001) were significant risk factors in the univariate analysis. In the multivariate analysis, only noncefazolin antibiotics (OR: 2.48, 95% CI: 1.18-5.22, P =0.017) and BMI (MD: 1.56, 95% CI: 0.32-2.79, P =0.026) remained significant independent risk factors. Neither IV antibiotic regimen nor topical vancomycin significantly impacted Gram type, organism type, or antibiotic resistance ( P >0.05). The most common reason for antibiosis with vancomycin was a penicillin allergy (75.0%).
Conclusions: Prophylactic antibiosis with IV vancomycin leads to a 2.5 times higher risk of infection compared with IV cefazolin in primary spine surgery. We recommend the routine use of IV cefazolin for infection prophylaxis, and caution against the elective use of alternative regimens like IV vancomycin unless clinically warranted.
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.