Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Time: 23:9
A P P L I E D
Pharmacology
Column Editor: Kyle A. Weant, PharmD, BCPS
Abstract
Emergency departments across the country regularly treat patients with traumatic injuries. One of
the more common injuries that these patients present with is open fractures. Much of the morbidity
associated with these fractures can be traced to the development of fracture-site infections that can
lead to chronic osteomyelitis, impaired bone healing, and potential limb loss. Initial wound cultures in
this setting are frequently positive, but they tend to demonstrate poor correlation with subsequent
infections. The emergent management of open fractures includes a multipronged approach that
includes stabilization, debridement, irrigation, soft tissue coverage, and systemic empiric antibiotics
for prophylaxis. This review will discuss the etiology and factors associated with the development
of infections in this setting, the use of empiric antibiotics, and the guidelines currently available.
Key words: antibiotics, cefazolin, emergency department, gentamicin, open fracture
Author Affiliations: Pharmacy Services, KentuckyOne Health, University of Louisville Hospital and
Jewish Hospital, Louisville, Kentucky (Dr Weant); University of Kentucky HealthCare, and Departments of
Pharmacy Services and Pharmacy Practice and Science,
University of Kentucky College of Pharmacy, Lexington
(Drs Bailey and Baum); and Department of Pharmacy,
Charleston Area Medical Center, Charleston, West
Virginia (Dr Justice).
Disclosure: The authors report no conflicts of interest.
Corresponding Author: Kyle A. Weant, PharmD,
BCPS, Pharmacy Services, KentuckyOne Health, 530
S. Jackson St, Louisville, KY 40202 (kaw9600@alumni
.unc.edu).
DOI: 10.1097/TME.0000000000000052
23
Copyright 2015 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
Article: AENJ-D-14-00038
24
of open fracture wounds (Gustilo & Anderson, 1976). In an attempt to limit this untoward consequence, antibiotic prophylaxis
is commonly used to limit the rate of infectious complications. However, the benefits of
this practice need to be critically weighed
against the known risks of prophylactic antibiotic use, such as the development of antibiotic resistance, subsequent infection from
multidrug resistant pathogens, and the development of a health care associated infection (Manian, Meyer, Setzer, & Senkel, 2003;
Namias et al., 1999). The emergent management of these fractures includes stabilization,
debridement, irrigation, soft tissue coverage,
and systemic antibiotic prophylaxis. Emergency department practitioners are encouraged to develop standardized approaches to
this patient population to ensure the provision of safe, timely, and effective antibiotic
prophylaxis. This review will discuss the etiology and factors associated with the development of infections in this setting, the
use of empiric antibiotics, and the available
guidelines.
ETIOLOGY
The occurrence of infections with open fractures is a potentially preventable deleterious
adverse event. The rate of infection is quite
variable but has been noted to be up to
50% in some studies (Carsenti-Etesse et al.,
1999). Certain subpopulations within those
presenting with open fractures also appear
to be more predisposed to the development
of infection (Lane et al., 2012). Patients who
present with a more severe fracture grade,
defined by the Gustilo and Anderson scale,
have a statistically significant increased incidence of infection (Harley, Beaupre, Jones,
Dulai, & Weber, 2002; Hauser et al., 2006).
The impact of a subsequent infection can also
be profound as the rate of infection has been
shown to increase the incidence of nonunion
of the fracture and subsequent bone instability (Gustilo & Anderson, 1976). Although
many patients with open fractures present
to the ED with a certain amount of bacterial
Time: 23:9
inoculums acquired during or following injury, this does not necessarily represent the
bacteria that subsequently results in infection (Patzakis, Harvey, & Ivler, 1974). Multiple studies utilizing wound cultures have
found that bacteria found in these wounds
at the time of presentation do not correlate
with bacteria that subsequently cause postoperative infections in these patients (CarsentiEtesse et al., 1999; Lee, 1997; Merritt, 1988).
Blood cultures have also been found to be
equally unhelpful, with only 8% correlating
with subsequent infectious organisms (Lee,
1997). Most infections of open fractures tend
to be the result of hospital-acquired bacteria including gram-negative rods and grampositive staphylococci. Some studies have reported nosocomial bacteria to be responsible
for as many as 92% of infections (CarsentiEtesse et al., 1999). This is likely secondary
to immunosuppression due to the injury itself
as well as alterations in perfusion to the injured tissue (Barie, 2006). This is supported
by studies that have shown that the time
to definitive treatment did not have an impact on the infection rate; however, infection
rates were significantly increased in more severe fractures (Gustilo, & Anderson, 1976).
Historically, gram-positive organisms including Staphylococcus aureus accounted for as
much as half of all surgical site infections in
the setting of open fractures (Bergman, 1982;
Braun, Enzler, & Rittmann, 1987; Patzakis et
al., 1974). More recent research in the age
of a higher prevalence of methicillin-resistant
Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) has found
that although the overall causative agent has
not changed, MRSA now accounts for a substantial portion of this number (up to 18%)
(Saveli et al., 2013). This rate has also been
noted to increase significantly in those who
have nasal colonization with MRSA (Saveli
et al., 2013; Shukla, Nixon, Acharya, Korim, &
Pandey, 2009). Approximately 20% of the general population has nasal colonization with
S. aureus and it can persist for months or
years (Weidenmaier, Goerke, & Wolz, 2012).
In one study of open fractures, more than 20%
of patients were found to be colonized with
Copyright 2015 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
Article: AENJ-D-14-00038
JanuaryMarch 2015
Time: 23:9
25
Copyright 2015 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
Article: AENJ-D-14-00038
Time: 23:9
26
Table 1. Estimated infection rate by fracture grade and recommended antibiotic coverage
Fracture grade
Infection
rate
0%9%
II
1%12%
III
9%55%
Possible fecal or
clostridial
contamination
(e.g., farm-related
injuries)
EAST recommendations
Gram-positive coverage
(e.g., cefazolin)
Gram-positive coverage
(e.g., cefazolin)
Gram-positive coverage
(e.g., cefazolin) +
Gram-negative coverage
(e.g., gentamicin)
Above coverage plus the
addition of high-dose
penicillin
Surgical Infection
Society
recommendations
Gram-positive coverage
(e.g., cefazolin)
Gram-positive coverage
(e.g., cefazolin)
Gram-positive coverage
(e.g., cefazolin)
No additional coverage
recommended
Note. EAST = Eastern Association for the Surgery of Trauma. From Epidemiology of Bacterial Infection During Management of Open Leg Fractures, by H. Carsenti-Etesse, F. Doyon, N. Desplaces, O. Gagey, C. Tancrede, C. Pradier, B.
Dunais, and P. Dellamonica, 1999, European Journal of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases, 18(5), pp.
315323; East Practice Management Guidelines Work Group: Update to Practice Management Guidelines for Prophylactic Antibiotic Use in Open Fractures, by W. S. Hoff, J. A. Bonadies, R. Cachecho, and W. C. Dorlac, 2011, Journal of
Trauma, 70(3), pp. 751754; Surgical Infection Society Guideline: Prophylactic Antibiotic Use in Open Fractures: An
Evidence-Based Guideline, by C. J. Hauser, C. A. Jr. Adams, and S. R. Eachempati, 2006, Surgical Infections (Larchmt),
7(4), pp. 379405.
Copyright 2015 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
Article: AENJ-D-14-00038
JanuaryMarch 2015
Time: 23:9
27
Copyright 2015 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
Article: AENJ-D-14-00038
28
Time: 23:9
Copyright 2015 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
Article: AENJ-D-14-00038
JanuaryMarch 2015
Time: 23:9
29
Copyright 2015 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.