Talan David A, Abrahamian Fredrick M, Moran Gregory J, Mower William R, Alagappan Kumar, Tiffany Brian R, Pollack Charles V, Steele Mark T, Dunbar Lala M, Bajani Mary D, Weyant Robbin S, Ostroff Steven M
Department of Medicine, Division of Emergency Medicine, Olive View-University of California-Los Angeles Medical Center, Sylmar 91342, USA.
Ann Emerg Med. 2004 Mar;43(3):305-14. doi: 10.1016/j.annemergmed.2003.09.017.
We determine tetanus seroprotection rates and physician compliance with tetanus prophylaxis recommendations among patients presenting with wounds.
A prospective observational study of patients aged 18 years or older who presented to 5 university-affiliated emergency departments (EDs) because of wounds was conducted between March 1999 and August 2000. Serum antitoxin levels were measured by enzyme immunoassay with seroprotection defined as more than 0.15 IU/mL. Seroprotection rates, risk factors for lack of seroprotection, and rates of physician compliance with tetanus prophylaxis recommendations by the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices were determined.
The seroprotection rate among 1,988 patients was 90.2% (95% confidence interval 88.8% to 91.5%). Groups with significantly lower seroprotection rates were persons aged 70 years or older, 59.5% (risk ratio [RR] 5.2); immigrants from outside North America or Western Europe, 75.3% (RR 3.7); persons with a history of inadequate immunization, 86.3% (RR 2.9); and persons without education beyond grade school, 76.5% (RR 2.5). Despite a history of adequate immunization, 18% of immigrants lacked seroprotection. Overall, 60.9% of patients required tetanus immunization, of whom 57.6% did not receive indicated immunization. Among patients with tetanus-prone wounds, appropriate prophylaxis (ie, tetanus immunoglobulin and toxoid) was provided to none of 504 patients who gave a history of inadequate primary immunization (of whom 15.1% had nonprotective antibody titers) and to 218 (79%) of 276 patients who required only a toxoid booster.
Although seroprotection rates are generally high in the United States, the risk of tetanus persists in the elderly, immigrants, and persons without education beyond grade school. There is substantial underimmunization in the ED (particularly with regard to use of tetanus immunoglobulin), leaving many patients, especially those from high-risk groups, unprotected. Better awareness of tetanus prophylaxis recommendations is necessary, and future tetanus prophylaxis recommendations may be more effective if they are also based on demographic risk factors.
我们确定了因伤口就诊患者的破伤风血清保护率以及医生对破伤风预防建议的依从性。
1999年3月至2000年8月,对因伤口前往5家大学附属医院急诊科就诊的18岁及以上患者进行了一项前瞻性观察研究。采用酶免疫测定法测量血清抗毒素水平,血清保护定义为抗毒素水平超过0.15 IU/mL。确定了血清保护率、缺乏血清保护的危险因素以及医生对免疫实践咨询委员会破伤风预防建议的依从率。
1988例患者的血清保护率为90.2%(95%置信区间88.8%至91.5%)。血清保护率显著较低的群体包括70岁及以上人群,为59.5%(风险比[RR] 5.2);来自北美或西欧以外地区的移民,为75.3%(RR 3.7);有免疫接种不足病史的人群,为86.3%(RR 2.9);以及小学以上未接受过教育的人群,为76.5%(RR 2.5)。尽管有充分的免疫接种史,但18%的移民缺乏血清保护。总体而言,60.9%的患者需要进行破伤风免疫接种,其中57.6%的患者未接受指定的免疫接种。在有破伤风易感伤口的患者中,对于504例有初次免疫接种不足病史的患者(其中15.1%的患者抗体滴度无保护作用),无一例给予适当的预防措施(即破伤风免疫球蛋白和类毒素);而对于276例仅需类毒素加强免疫的患者,有218例(79%)得到了预防措施。
尽管美国的血清保护率总体较高,但破伤风风险在老年人、移民以及小学以上未接受过教育的人群中依然存在。急诊科存在大量免疫接种不足的情况(尤其是在使用破伤风免疫球蛋白方面),导致许多患者,特别是高危人群未得到保护。有必要更好地了解破伤风预防建议,并且如果未来的破伤风预防建议也基于人口统计学风险因素,可能会更有效。