Murphy ZR, Muzaffar AF, Massih SA, Klein EY, Dispenza MC, Fabre V, Hensley NB, Blumenthal KG, Alvarez-Arango S. Examining cefazolin utilization and perioperative anaphylaxis in patients with and without a penicillin allergy label: A cross-sectional study.
J Clin Anesth 2024;
94:111377. [PMID:
38241788 PMCID:
PMC10939842 DOI:
10.1016/j.jclinane.2024.111377]
[Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/12/2023] [Revised: 01/03/2024] [Accepted: 01/04/2024] [Indexed: 01/21/2024]
Abstract
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.
Collapse