Administration of intravenous antibiotics in patients with open fractures is dependent on emergency room triaging

Background Recent literature has demonstrated that emergent administration of antibiotics is perhaps more critical than even emergent debridement. Most recent studies recommend patients receive antibiotics no later than 1 hour after injury to prevent infection. The objective of this study is to evaluate the time to antibiotic administration after patients with open fractures arrive to a trauma center depending on triaging team. Methods A retrospective study at a level 1 Trauma center from January 2013 to March 2015 where 117 patients with open fractures were evaluated. Patients who presented with open fractures of the extremities or pelvis were considered. Subjects were identified using Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) codes. Patients aged 18 and older were analyzed for Gustilo type, antibiotics administered in the emergency room (ER), presence of an antibiotic allergy, post-operative antibiotic regimen and number of debridements, among others. Additionally, whether a patient was triaged by ER doctors or trauma surgeons (and made a trauma activation) was evaluated. Outcome measurements included time to intravenous (IV) antibiotic administration and time to surgical debridement. Results Patients received IV cefazolin a median of 17 minutes after arrival. Eighty-five patients who were made trauma activations received cefazolin 14 minutes after arrival while 24 non-trauma patients received cefazolin 53 minutes after arrival (p = <0.0001). The median time to gentamicin administration for all patients was 180 minutes. Patients not upgraded to a trauma received gentamicin 263 minutes after arrival, while patients upgraded received gentamicin 176 minutes after arrival. There was no statistically significant difference between the timing to cefazolin or gentamicin based on Gustilo type. Conclusions Overall, patients that arrive at our institution with open fractures receive IV cefazolin significantly faster when trauma surgeons evaluate the patient. Additionally, delays in gentamicin administration are demonstrated in both triaging groups. This is due to the fact that cefazolin is stocked in the hospital ER, while gentamicin is commonly not due to weight-based dosing requirements precluding a standard dose. Improvements can be made to antibiotic administration of non-trauma patients and those requiring gentamicin via improved education and awareness of open fractures.

[1]  R. Hayda,et al.  Decreased Time to Antibiotic Prophylaxis for Open Fractures at a Level One Trauma Center , 2017, Journal of orthopaedic trauma.

[2]  J. Weinlein,et al.  Role of Systemic and Local Antibiotics in the Treatment of Open Fractures. , 2017, The Orthopedic clinics of North America.

[3]  M. Bosse,et al.  Type III Open Tibia Fractures: Immediate Antibiotic Prophylaxis Minimizes Infection , 2014, Journal of orthopaedic trauma.

[4]  C. Collinge,et al.  Substantial Improvement in Prophylactic Antibiotic Administration for Open Fracture Patients: Results of a Performance Improvement Program , 2014, Journal of orthopaedic trauma.

[5]  H. Kreder,et al.  Delayed debridement of severe open fractures is associated with a higher rate of deep infection. , 2014, The bone & joint journal.

[6]  D. Pittet,et al.  Short duration of antibiotic prophylaxis in open fractures does not enhance risk of subsequent infection. , 2013, The bone & joint journal.

[7]  T. Osler,et al.  Compliance with the Eastern Association for the Surgery of Trauma guidelines for prophylactic antibiotics after open extremity fracture , 2012, International journal of critical illness and injury science.

[8]  J. Bonadies,et al.  East Practice Management Guidelines Work Group: update to practice management guidelines for prophylactic antibiotic use in open fractures. , 2011, The Journal of trauma.

[9]  R. Castillo,et al.  Complications Following Limb-Threatening Lower Extremity Trauma , 2009, Journal of orthopaedic trauma.

[10]  R. Marcus,et al.  Management of open fractures and subsequent complications. , 2007, Instructional course lectures.

[11]  Soumitra R. Eachempati,et al.  Surgical Infection Society guideline: prophylactic antibiotic use in open fractures: an evidence-based guideline. , 2006, Surgical infections.

[12]  R. Gosselin,et al.  Antibiotics for preventing infection in open limb fractures. , 2004, The Cochrane database of systematic reviews.

[13]  G. Singer,et al.  Prospective, randomized, double-blind study comparing single-agent antibiotic therapy, ciprofloxacin, to combination antibiotic therapy in open fracture wounds. , 2000 .

[14]  R. Gustilo.  Interobserver agreement in the classification of open fractures of the tibia. The results of a survey of two hundred and forty-five orthopaedic surgeons. , 1995, The Journal of bone and joint surgery. American volume.

[15]  R. Brumback,et al.  Interobserver agreement in the classification of open fractures of the tibia. The results of a survey of two hundred and forty-five orthopaedic surgeons. , 1994, The Journal of bone and joint surgery. American volume.

[16]  M. Patzakis,et al.  Factors influencing infection rate in open fracture wounds. , 1989, Clinical orthopaedics and related research.

[17]  P. Anderson,et al.  Risk of infection after open fracture of the arm or leg. , 1988, Archives of surgery.

[18]  D. N. Williams,et al.  Problems in the management of type III (severe) open fractures: a new classification of type III open fractures. , 1984, The Journal of trauma.

[19]  R. Gustilo,et al.  OTD classic article review - Gustillo RB, Anderson JT (1976) Prevention of infection in the treatment of one thousand and twenty-five open fractures of long bones: retrospective and prospective analyses , 2002, The Journal of bone and joint surgery. American volume.