Outcome of preoperative cefazolin use for infection prophylaxis in patients with self-reported penicillin allergy

Examining cefazolin utilization and perioperative anaphylaxis in patients with and without a penicillin allergy label: A cross-sectional study

STUDY OBJECTIVE

To compare the occurrence of cefazolin perioperative anaphylaxis (POA) in patients with and without a penicillin allergy label (PAL) to determine whether the prevalence of cefazolin POA differs based on the presence of a PAL.

DESIGN

Cross-sectional study.

SETTING

A large U.S. healthcare system in the Baltimore-D.C. region, July 2017 to July 2020.

PATIENTS

112,817 surgical encounters across inpatient and outpatient settings in various specialties, involving 90,089 patients. Of these, 4876 (4.3%) encounters had a PAL.

INTERVENTIONS

Perioperative cefazolin administration within 4 h before surgery to 4 h after the procedure began.

MEASUREMENTS

The primary outcome was cefazolin POA in patients with and without PALs. Potential POA cases were identified based on tryptase orders or diphenhydramine administrations within the initial cefazolin administration to 6 h postoperatively. Verification included two validation steps. The first checked for hypersensitivity reaction (HSR) documentation, and the second, led by Allergy specialists, identified POA and the probable culprit. The secondary outcome looked at cefazolin use trends in patients with a PAL, stratified by setting and specialty.

MAIN RESULTS

Of 112,817 encounters, 1421 (1.3%) had possible cefazolin HSRs. Of these, 22 (1.5%) had POA, resulting in a 0.02% prevalence. Of these, 13 (59.1%) were linked to cefazolin and 9 (40.9%) attributed to other drugs. Only one cefazolin POA case had a PAL, indicating no significant difference in cefazolin POA prevalence between patients with and without PALs (p = 0.437). Perioperative cefazolin use in patients with PALs steadily increased from 2.6% to 6.0% between 2017 and 2020, specifically in academic settings.

CONCLUSIONS

The prevalence of cefazolin POA does not exhibit significant differences between patients with and without PALs, and notably, the incidence remains remarkably low. Based on these findings, it is advisable to view cefazolin as an acceptable choice for prophylaxis in patients carrying a PAL.

Perioperative Cefazolin for Total Joint Arthroplasty Patients Who Have a Penicillin Allergy: Is It Safe?

BACKGROUND

Cefazolin is the standard of care for perioperative antibiotic prophylaxis in total joint arthroplasty (TJA) in the United States. The potential allergic cross-reactivity between cefazolin and penicillin causes uncertainty regarding optimal antibiotic choice in patients who have a reported penicillin allergy (rPCNA). The purpose of this study was to determine the safety of perioperative cefazolin in PCNA patients undergoing primary TJA.

METHODS

We identified all patients (n = 49,842) undergoing primary total hip arthroplasty (n = 25,659) or total knee arthroplasty (n = 24,183) from 2016 to 2022 who received perioperative intravenous antibiotic prophylaxis. Patients who had an rPCNA (n = 5,508) who received cefazolin (n = 4,938, 89.7%) were compared to rPCNA patients who did not (n = 570, 10.3%), and to patients who did not have an rPCNA (n = 43,359). The primary outcome was the rate of allergic reactions within 72 hours postoperatively. Secondary outcomes included the rates of superficial infections, deep infections, and Clostridioides difficile infections within 90 days.

RESULTS

The rate of allergic reactions was 0.1% (n = 5) in rPCNA patients who received cefazolin, compared to 0.2% (n = 1) in rPCNA patients who did not (P = .48) and 0.02% (n = 11) in patients who have no rPCNA (P = .02). Allergic reactions were mild in all 5 rPCNA patients who received cefazolin and were characterized by cutaneous symptoms (n = 4) or dyspnea in the absence of respiratory distress (n = 1) that resolved promptly with antibiotic discontinuation and administration of antihistamines and/or corticosteroids. We observed no differences in the rates of superficial infections (0.1 versus 0.2%, P = .58), deep infections (0.3 versus 0.4%, P = .68), or C difficile infections (0.04% versus 0%, P = .99) within 90 days in rPCNA patients who received cefazolin versus alternative perioperative antibiotics.

CONCLUSIONS

In this series of more than 5,500 patients who had an rPCNA undergoing primary TJA, perioperative prophylaxis with cefazolin resulted in a 0.1% incidence of allergic reactions that were clinically indolent. Cefazolin can be safely administered to most patients, independent of rPCNA severity.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

III.