Perioperative Antibiotic Use for Spinal Surgeries in US Children's Hospitals.

Jan 2013 

McLeod LM, Keren R, Gerber J, French B, Song L, Sampson NR, Flynn J, Dormans JP.

Source

1Department of General Pediatrics, Center for Pediatric Clinical Effectiveness, Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, Philadelphia, PA 2Center for Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine, Philadelphia, PA 3Division of Pediatric Infectious Diseases, Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, Philadelphia, PA 4Division of Orthopaedic Surgery, Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, Philadelphia, PA.

Abstract

ABSTRACT: Study Design: Retrospective cohort study using the Pediatric Health Information Systems (PHIS) database.

Objective: To describe longitudinal patterns of prophylactic antibiotic use and determinants of antibiotic choice for spinal fusion surgeries performed at US children's hospitals.Summary of Background Data: Surgical Site Infections (SSIs) account for a significant proportion of post-spinal surgery complications, particularly among children with complex conditions such as neuromuscular disease. Antimicrobial prophylaxis with intravenous (IV) cefazolin or cefuroxime has been a standard practice, but postoperative infections caused by organisms resistant to these antibiotics are increasing in prevalence. Studies describing the choice of antibiotic prophylaxis for pediatric spinal surgery are lacking.

Methods: We included children 6 months to 18 years of age discharged from 37 US children's hospitals between January 1, 2006 - June 30, 2009 with 1) an ICD9-CM procedure code indicating a spinal fusion and 2) combinations of diagnosis codes indicating adolescent idiopathic scoliosis (AIS, n = 5,617) or neuromuscular scoliosis (NMS, n = 3,633). After identifying antibiotics ordered on the operative day, we described variation in broad-spectrum antibiotic use over time, and measured associations between patient/surgery characteristics and antibiotic choice.

Results: Prophylactic antibiotic choice varied across hospitals and over time. Broad-spectrum antibiotics were used in 37% of AIS and 52% of NMS operations. Seven (19%) hospitals used broad spectrum coverage for greater than 80% of all cases. For NMS procedures, broad-spectrum antibiotic use was associated with patient characteristics known to be associated with high SSI risk. Use of vancomycin and broad gram-negative agents increased over time.

Conclusion: Broad-spectrum antimicrobial prophylaxis varied across hospitals, and was often associated with known risk factors for SSI. These results highlight the need for future studies comparing the effectiveness of various prophylaxis strategies, particularly in high risk subgroups. This research can inform the development of best practice for SSI prevention in spinal fusion procedures.

PubMed

Trends in Resistance to Ciprofloxacin, Cefazolin, and Gentamicin in the Treatment of Bacterial Keratitis

Trends in Resistance to Ciprofloxacin, Cefazolin, and Gentamicin in the Treatment of Bacterial Keratitis

J Ocul Pharmacol Ther. 2008 Mar 10

Afshari NA, Ma JJ, Duncan SM, Pineda R, Starr CE, Decroos FC, Johnson CS, Adelman RA.
Duke University Eye Center, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC.

Purpose: The aim of this study was to evaluate the microbial profile, resistance patterns, and antibiotic sensitivity of bacterial keratitis to three commonly used ocular antibiotics.

Methods: All cases of bacterial keratitis referred to the Massachusetts Eye and Ear Infirmary Microbiology Laboratory from two consecutive annual 10-month periods were reviewed. The bacterial profile and resistance to ciprofloxacin, cefazolin, and gentamicin was evaluated within the two intervals.

Results: Of the 485 cultures analyzed, 66.4% (322) were positive for bacterial isolates. Of these, 19.2% were polymicrobial, 87.5% were gram-positive, and 12.5% were gram-negative. The most prevalent isolate was coagulase-negative Staphylococcus (45.5%), followed by S. aureus (15.2%).

The resistance patterns for gram-positive bacteria for ciprofloxacin for the first versus second time interval were 12% and 22% (P = 0.04) respectively, for cefazolin 13% and 23% (P = 0.04), and for gentamicin 4% and 7% (P = 0.36). The resistance patterns for gram-negative bacteria for ciprofloxacin, cefazolin, and gentamicin were not significantly different in the two tested time periods (all P greater then 0.05).

Conclusions: There was increased resistance of gram-positive organisms to ciprofloxacin and cefazolin, but not gentamicin, in the two examined time periods. Increased resistance to these commonly used antibiotics emphasizes the need for close follow-up after initial empiric treatment, and maintaining a low threshold for selecting alternative therapy.

Liebert