Robert T Gerhardt1, Joseph M Matthews, Scott G Sullivan. 1. Department of Emergency Medicine, Brooke Army Medical Center/San Antonio Uniformed Services Health Education Consortium, Fort Sam Houston, Texas 78234, USA. robert.gerhardt@us.army.mil
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Systemic antibiotic prophylaxis (SAP) for combat wounds is controversial. Current military practice favors its use, despite scant supporting evidence. OBJECTIVE: To analyze outcomes of combat casualties returned to duty after initial wound care for penetrating trauma, comparing infection rates based on whether SAP was administered and whether wounds were irrigated. SETTING: Forward operating base in Central Iraq, with units engaged in urban combat. METHODS: This was a retrospective cohort study using field medical records. Wound mechanism, location, antibiotic use, and clinical course were abstracted. Subjects were excluded if injuries were isolated burns or eye trauma or if follow-up was not documented. STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Contingency table analysis, Fisher's exact test, and odds ratios were used. RESULTS: Fifty-eight eligible cases were identified; five were excluded for incomplete follow-up (four) or confounding injuries (one). Of the remaining 53 cases, 43 included receipt of SAP (81%). Wound mechanisms and anatomic locations were comparable between groups. Infections developed within 48 hours in 7% of the SAP cases versus 40% without SAP (no SAP); odds ratio 0.11 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.02 to 0.57); number needed to treat (NNT) 3 (95% CI 2 to 14). Forty-four subjects received wound irrigation (83%). Infections developed within 48 hours in two (4.5%) irrigated cases versus five (55%) without irrigation (no irrigation); odds ratio 0.04 (95% CI 0.006 to 0.24); NNT 2 (95% CI 1.4 to 4.7). Further 4 x 2 contingency table analysis yielded wound infection rates as follows: no SAP/irrigation, 17%; SAP/no irrigation, 40%; SAP/irrigation, 2.6%; no SAP/no irrigation, 75% (Fisher's exact p < 0.0005). CONCLUSIONS: We detected independent and combined associations among SAP, irrigation, and significantly decreased wound infection rates. Effects of SAP and irrigation may be synergistic. Copious irrigation with potable water or sterile isotonic solution should be performed at the earliest practical juncture after a wound occurs. SAP should be administered if irrigation cannot be performed, and may be warranted in addition to irrigation for complex or contaminated wounds or if expeditious return to duty is required. Larger epidemiologic studies are needed to validate our findings.
BACKGROUND: Systemic antibiotic prophylaxis (SAP) for combat wounds is controversial. Current military practice favors its use, despite scant supporting evidence. OBJECTIVE: To analyze outcomes of combat casualties returned to duty after initial wound care for penetrating trauma, comparing infection rates based on whether SAP was administered and whether wounds were irrigated. SETTING: Forward operating base in Central Iraq, with units engaged in urban combat. METHODS: This was a retrospective cohort study using field medical records. Wound mechanism, location, antibiotic use, and clinical course were abstracted. Subjects were excluded if injuries were isolated burns or eye trauma or if follow-up was not documented. STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Contingency table analysis, Fisher's exact test, and odds ratios were used. RESULTS: Fifty-eight eligible cases were identified; five were excluded for incomplete follow-up (four) or confounding injuries (one). Of the remaining 53 cases, 43 included receipt of SAP (81%). Wound mechanisms and anatomic locations were comparable between groups. Infections developed within 48 hours in 7% of the SAP cases versus 40% without SAP (no SAP); odds ratio 0.11 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.02 to 0.57); number needed to treat (NNT) 3 (95% CI 2 to 14). Forty-four subjects received wound irrigation (83%). Infections developed within 48 hours in two (4.5%) irrigated cases versus five (55%) without irrigation (no irrigation); odds ratio 0.04 (95% CI 0.006 to 0.24); NNT 2 (95% CI 1.4 to 4.7). Further 4 x 2 contingency table analysis yielded wound infection rates as follows: no SAP/irrigation, 17%; SAP/no irrigation, 40%; SAP/irrigation, 2.6%; no SAP/no irrigation, 75% (Fisher's exact p < 0.0005). CONCLUSIONS: We detected independent and combined associations among SAP, irrigation, and significantly decreased wound infection rates. Effects of SAP and irrigation may be synergistic. Copious irrigation with potable water or sterile isotonic solution should be performed at the earliest practical juncture after a wound occurs. SAP should be administered if irrigation cannot be performed, and may be warranted in addition to irrigation for complex or contaminated wounds or if expeditious return to duty is required. Larger epidemiologic studies are needed to validate our findings.
Authors: W G P Eardley; K V Brown; T J Bonner; A D Green; J C Clasper Journal: Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci Date: 2011-01-27 Impact factor: 6.237
Authors: Stephen C Hafertepen; James W Davis; Ricard N Townsend; Lawrence P Sue; Krista L Kaups; Kathleen M Cagle Journal: World J Surg Date: 2015-07 Impact factor: 3.352