Review of MRSA screening and antibiotics prophylaxis in orthopaedic trauma patients; The risk of surgical site infection with inadequate antibiotic prophylaxis in patients colonized with MRSA. Issue 7 (July 2017)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Iqbal, H.J.; Ponniah, N.; Long, S.; Rath, N.; Kent, M.
• Is Part Of: Injury. Volume 48:Issue 7(2017)
• Page Start: 1382
• Page End: 1387
• Publication Date: 2017-07
• Subjects: Methicillin resistant staphylococcus aureus -- Trauma surgery -- MRSA screening -- Glycopeptide antibiotics -- Surgical site infection; Wounds and injuries -- Surgery -- Periodicals; Accidents -- Periodicals; Wounds and Injuries -- surgery -- Periodicals; Lésions et blessures -- Chirurgie -- Périodiques; Electronic journals; Electronic journals; 617.1
• DOI: 10.1016/j.injury.2017.04.012
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0020-1383

Abstract

Abstract: Aims: The primary aim of this study was to determine whether orthopaedic trauma patients receive appropriate antibiotic prophylaxis keeping in view the results of their MRSA screening. The secondary aim was to analyse the risk of developing MRSA surgical site infection with and without appropriate antibiotic prophylaxis in those colonized with MRSA. Patients and methods: We reviewed 400 consecutive orthopaedic trauma patient episodes. Preoperative MRSA screening results, operative procedures, prophylactic antibiotics and postoperative course were explored. In addition to these consecutive patients, the hospital MRSA database over the previous 5 years identified 27 MRSA colonized acute trauma patients requiring surgery. Results: Of the 400 consecutive patient episodes, 395(98.7%) had MRSA screening performed on admission. However, in 236 (59.0%) cases, the results were not available before the surgery. Seven patient episodes (1.8%) had positive MRSA colonization. Analysis of 27 MRSA colonized patients revealed that 20(74%) patients did not have the screening results available before the surgery. Only 5(18.5%) received Teicoplanin and 22(81.4%) received cefuroxime for antibiotic prophylaxis before their surgery. Of those receiving cefuroxime, five (22.73%) patients developed postoperative MRSA surgical site infection (SSI) but none of those (0%) receiving Teicoplanin had MRSA SSI. The absolute risk reduction for SSI with Teicoplanin as antibiotic prophylaxis was 22.73% (CI = 5.22%–40.24%) and NNT (Number Needed to Treat) was 5 (CI = 2.5–19.2) Conclusion: Lack of available screening results before the surgery may lead to inadequate antibiotic prophylaxis increasing the risk of MRSA surgical site infection. Glycopeptide (e.g.Teicoplanin) prophylaxis should be considered when there is history of MRSA colonization or MRSA screening results are not available before the surgery.