Anna Stachel

Risk Factors for Infection Following Total Knee Arthroplasty: A Series of 3836 Cases from One Institution

Higher PJI rates may be related to identifiable risk factors, which may or may not be modifiable. Identifying risk factors preoperatively provides opportunities for modification and potentially decreasing the incidence of PJI. The purposes of this study were to: (1) retrospectively identify and quantify risk factors for PJI following primary TKA, and (2) to classify those significant risk factors as either non-modifiable or modifiable for intervention prior to surgery. Optimization of modifiable risk factors such as Staphylococcus aureus colonization, and tobacco use prior to primary TKA may decrease the incidence of periprosthetic joint infection after primary TKA, thereby reducing morbidity and the costs associated with treating those infections.

Expanded Gram-Negative Antimicrobial Prophylaxis Reduces Surgical Site Infections in Hip Arthroplasty

BACKGROUND A first-generation cephalosporin is the recommended antibiotic prophylaxis for implants. However, this standard does not address the increasing prevalence and virulence of gram-negative pathogens infecting patients. We found that gram-negative bacilli caused 30% of our surgical site infections (SSIs) following hip procedures, whereas only 10% of knee SSIs were caused by gram-negative bacilli. To address this, we instituted Expanded Gram-Negative Antimicrobial Prophylaxis (EGNAP) for our hip arthroplasty patients. The purpose of this study is to measure the effect of EGNAP on the SSI rates following primary total hip arthroplasty. METHODS The study consisted of 10,084 total patients. Before July 2012, all patients were administered 1 g of cefazolin. After July 2012, our protocol was adjusted by adding the EGNAP with either gentamicin or aztreonam to hip patients (group 1) and not to the knee arthroplasty patients (group 2). RESULTS Group 1 consisted of the 5389 primary hip arthroplasty patients. Of these patients, 4122 (before July 2012) did not receive weight-based high-dose gentamicin and 1267 (after July 2012) did. Before the introduction of EGNAP, group 1 SSI rate was 1.19% (49/4122). After July 2012 when EGNAP was added, the overall group 1 SSI rate decreased to 0.55% (7/1267) (P = .05). During the study period, there was not a significant difference in SSI rate of knee arthroplasty (group 2): 1.08% vs 1.02% (P = .999). CONCLUSIONS The addition of EGNAP for hip arthroplasty is a safe and effective method to decrease SSIs. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE III. Case-control study.

Prior Staphylococcus Aureus Nasal Colonization: A Risk Factor for Surgical Site Infections Following Decolonization

Introduction:Staphylococcus aureus (S aureus) decolonization regimens are being used to mitigate the risk of surgical site infection (SSI). However, their efficacy is controversial, with mixed results reported in the literature. Methods:Before undergoing primary total knee arthroplasty (TKA), total hip arthroplasty (THA), or spinal fusion, 13,828 consecutive patients were screened for nasal S aureus and underwent a preoperative decolonization regimen. Infection rates of colonized and noncolonized patients were compared using unadjusted logistic regression. An adjusted regression analysis was performed to determine independent risk factors for SSI. Results:The rate of SSI in colonized patients was 4.35% compared with only 2.39% in noncolonized patients. In our TKA cohort, unadjusted logistic regression identified S aureus colonization to be a significant risk factor for SSI (odds ratio [OR], 2.9; P < 0.001). After controlling for other potential confounders including age, body mass index, tobacco use, and American Society of Anesthesiologists score, an SSI was 3.8 times more likely to develop in patients colonized with S aureus (OR, 3.8; P = 0.0025). The THA and spine colonized patients trended toward higher risk in both unadjusted and adjusted models; however, the results were not statistically significant. Discussion:The results of our study suggest that decolonization may not be fully protective against SSI. The risk of infection after decolonization is not lowered to the baseline of a noncolonized patient. Level of Evidence:Level IV

Single high dose gentamicin for perioperative prophylaxis in orthopedic surgery: Evaluation of nephrotoxicity

Background: Recent studies described an increase in acute kidney injury when high dose gentamicin was included in perioperative prophylaxis for orthopedic surgeries. To this effect, we compared the rate of nephrotoxicity for selected orthopedic surgeries where gentamicin was included (Gentamicin Group) to those where it was not included (Control Group) for perioperative prophylaxis and evaluated risk factors for nephrotoxicity. Methods: Spine, hip and knee surgeries performed between April 2011 and December 2013 were reviewed retrospectively. Gentamicin was given to eligible patients based on age, weight and Creatinine Clearance. Nephrotoxicity was assessed using Risk, Injury, Failure, Loss, End-stage kidney disease (RIFLE) criteria. Results: Among selected surgeries (N = 1590 in Gentamicin Group: hip = 926, spine = 600, knee = 64; N = 2587 in Control Group: hip = 980, spine = 902, knee = 705), patients’ body weight, serum creatinine, comorbidities and surgery duration were similar in Gentamicin Group and Control Group. Gentamicin median dose was 4.5 mg/kg of dosing weight. Nephrotoxicity rate was 2.5% in Gentamicin Group and 1.8% in Control Group, p = 0.17. Most cases of nephrotoxicity were Risk category by RIFLE criteria (67% in Gentamicin Group and 72% in Control Group, p = 0.49). In logistic regression, risk factors for nephrotoxicity were hospital stay >1 day prior to surgery (odds ratio = 8.1; 95% confidence interval = 2.25–28.97, p = 0.001), knee or hip surgery (odds ratio = 4.7; 95% confidence interval = 2.9–9.48, p = 0.0005) and diabetes (odds ratio = 1.95; 95% confidence interval = 1.13–3.35, p = 0.016). Receipt of gentamicin was not an independent predictor of nephrotoxicity (odds ratio = 1.5; 95% confidence interval = 0.97–2.35, p = 0.07). Conclusion: In this cohort, rate of nephrotoxicity was similar between Gentamicin Group and Control Group. Single high dose gentamicin is a safe and acceptable option for perioperative prophylaxis in eligible patients undergoing orthopedic surgeries.

Implementing an Inpatient Pediatric Prospective Audit and Feedback Antimicrobial Stewardship Program Within a Larger Medical Center

BACKGROUND Pediatric antimicrobial stewardship programs (ASPs) within larger institutions have unique opportunities to develop programs specialized to the needs of the pediatric program. In January 2013, our institution established a formalized pediatric ASP utilizing the prospective audit and feedback process. In an effort to standardize therapy and improve quality of care, members of the ASP developed evidence-based guidelines for management of common inpatient pediatric infections. ASP members met periodically with faculty and house staff to discuss guidelines and ways to improve prescribing. METHODS Provider adherence with clinical inpatient practice guidelines, frequency of interventions suggested by ASP, and acceptance of interventions by providers were elements used to measure process change. We measured outcome data by analyzing antimicrobial utilization (defined as days of therapy) and length of therapy. RESULTS Over a period of 2 years, institutional ASP guidelines were applicable to nearly half (44%) of all antimicrobial orders. Interventions were performed on 30% of all antimicrobial orders, of which 89% were accepted. Total antimicrobial days of therapy and length of therapy decreased significantly when comparing pre- and post-ASP. Overall, the susceptibility profiles of common bacterial pathogens to antibiotics remained stable. CONCLUSIONS Pediatric ASPs within larger institutions have opportunities to create programs specific to the needs of the population they serve. We observed high rates of adherence by providers and a subsequent reduction in antibiotic utilization when implementing an audit feedback-based process.

Implementation and evaluation of an automated surveillance system to detect hospital outbreak

HighlightsReal‐time surveillance system for clusters is useful for infection control programs.Using free WHONET‐SaTScan software allows for automation of surveillance.Surveillance system detected clusters of organisms otherwise unbeknownst.System was flexible, timely, acceptable, useful, and sensitive according to the Centers for Disease Control and Preventions guidelines. Background: The timely identification of a cluster is a critical requirement for infection prevention and control (IPC) departments because these events may represent transmission of pathogens within the health care setting. Given the issues with manual review of hospital infections, a surveillance system to detect clusters in health care settings must use automated data capture, validated statistical methods, and include all significant pathogens, antimicrobial susceptibility patterns, patient care locations, and health care teams. Methods: We describe the use of SaTScan statistical software to identify clusters, WHONET software to manage microbiology laboratory data, and electronic health record data to create a comprehensive outbreak detection system in our hospital. We also evaluated the system using the Centers for Disease Control and Preventions guidelines. Results: During an 8‐month surveillance time period, 168 clusters were detected, 45 of which met criteria for investigation, and 6 were considered transmission events. The system was felt to be flexible, timely, accepted by the department and hospital, useful, and sensitive, but it required significant resources and has a low positive predictive value. Conclusions: WHONET‐SaTScan is a useful addition to a robust IPC program. Although the resources required were significant, this prospective, real‐time cluster detection surveillance system represents an improvement over historical methods. We detected several episodes of transmission which would have eluded us previously, and allowed us to focus infection prevention efforts and improve patient safety.

Comparison of two methods of documenting urinary and central venous catheters at an academic medical center

Accurate documentation of the use of invasive devices, such as urinary and central line catheters, is important to track potential catheter-associated infections. Real-time identification of device infections allows practitioners to initiate timely apparent-cause analyses, therefore allowing rapid improvement of practice. For this reason, it was crucial to ensure our institutions mechanism to capture possible catheter-associated infections is validated after the adoption of a new electronic medical record system.