Septic arthritis of native joints in adults - Guideline for Management of |
Publication: 01/08/2008 |
Next review: 08/12/2024 |
Clinical Guideline |
CURRENT |
ID: 1386 |
Approved By: Improving Antimicrobial Prescribing Group |
Copyright© Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust 2021 |
This Clinical Guideline is intended for use by healthcare professionals within Leeds unless otherwise stated. |
Guidelines for management of septic arthritis of native joints in adults
Summary Septic arthritis of native joints in adults |
Criteria for use: Investigations required:
Treatment:
See full guideline for treatment of specific organisms |
Investigation |
A synovial fluid aspirate for Gram stain, polarising light microscopy and culture should be sent from all cases of suspected native joint infection and all clinically affected joints. Warfarinisation is not a contraindication to aspiration (Coakley et al., 2006). Evidence level B. The synovial fluid aspirate should not be routinely inoculated into blood culture bottles (Coakley et al., 2006). Evidence level C. Synovial fluid should be inoculated into blood culture bottles if infection with Brucella spp. is suspected and such cases must be discussed with microbiology to ensure cultures are prolonged and because of the laboratory infection risk posed by these organisms (Sorlin et al., 2000; von Essen & Holtta, 1986; Yagupsky et al., 2001). Evidence level B Inoculation of synovial fluid into blood culture bottles should be considered if antimicrobial therapy has been started prior to aspiration. False negative synovial fluid cultures are common [30-70%] due to prior administration of antimicrobials A full blood count [FBC] is indicated at the time of diagnosis. A raised peripheral blood polymorphonuclear leucocye [neutrophil] count is insensitive for the diagnosis of native joint infection, but because of the likely need for aspiration and potential effects of various antimicrobials on bone marrow or blood cells a baseline measurement is needed. Evidence level B C-reactive protein [CRP] should be measured at baseline in all cases. A raised CRP is a sensitive but non-specific result. A positive result gives support to a clinical diagnosis of native joint infection in the absence of other potential causes of a raised CRP. It may also be raised if infection is present at a site distant from the joint. Serial measurements are desirable to monitor the clinical course and the efficacy of the antibiotic treatment (Cooper & Cawley, 1986) Evidence level B. Urea and electrolytes [U&E], liver function tests [LFT’s] are required at baseline to assess renal and hepatic function; the antimicrobials commonly used in this situation may either affect these organs or dosing may be affected by renal or hepatic dysfunction. Evidence level B. Serum urate is of limited diagnostic value in septic arthritis or gout (Coakley et al., 2006) but a high level may point towards a diagnosis of gout and is recommended locally. Evidence level C. Two sets of blood cultures, should be sent from patients with suspected septic arthritis [http://www.emedicine.com/med/TOPIC3394.HTM last accessed 17/03/2008] and a fever, any symptoms of systemic upset [e.g. chills, myalgia, general malaise] or with a systemic inflammatory response syndrome, more severe inflammatory response and from immuno-compromised patients. A 50% positivity rate has been reported in non-gonococcal septic arthritis compared with less than 20% in gonococcal arthritis (Goldenberg & Reed, 1985). Blood cultures may be positive when joint aspirates are culture negative (Weston et al., 1999). Evidence level B. If there are symptoms or signs of other infections, such as urinary tract infection or wound infection, appropriate samples should be sent to microbiology. Evidence level C. Plain radiography of the affected joint[s] is recommended as a baseline; it is of no diagnostic value but to assess future joint damage and because chondrocalcinosis suggestive of pyrophosphate arthropathy may be demonstrated (Coakley et al., 2006). Evidence level C. Magnetic resonance imaging [MRI] is not recommended routinely in the investigation of a hot swollen joint but is the investigation of choice when osteomyelitis is suspected (Coakley et al., 2006). Evidence level B. |
Treatment |
Non-Antimicrobial Treatment |
A patient with suspected native joint infection should be referred urgently to an orthopaedic surgeon or rheumatologist (Coakley et al., 2006). Evidence level C. Removal of infected material from the joint is key to management and infected joints should be surgically debrided and irrigated by an orthopaedic surgeon or aspirated to dryness by a competent person. Evidence level C. Thorough surgical toilet and lavage is required for penetrating injuries involving joints |
Empirical Antimicrobial Treatment |
Native joint infections are most commonly caused by staphylococci, streptococci [including beta haemolytic streptococci groups A, B, C and G, Streptococcus pneumoniae] and Gram-negative bacilli [including Haemophilus influenzae, Escherichia coli, Pseudomonas aeruginosa] (Ryan et al., 1997). Neisseria spp. Remain a less common but important cause (Ryan et al., 1997). Anaerobes are more common when there is penetrating joint trauma. MRSA is a recognised cause of native joint infection in Leeds [7% of culture positive septic arthritis cases over an 18 month period]. It is important not to start antimicrobials until a synovial fluid sample has been taken (Coakley et al., 2006). Evidence level C. If resuscitation of a patient with severe sepsis or septic shock are likely to delay joint aspiration, do not delay starting empirical antimicrobial therapy but ensure that Blood cultures have been taken first. Evidence level C. Empirical therapy
Negative joint fluid microscopy. Positive joint fluid microscopy. |
Directed Antimicrobial Treatment (when microbiology results are known) |
When a joint aspirate is culture-positive, directed therapy can be commenced according to the culture results. In each case, susceptibility of the causative organisms will determine therapy. For the more common causative organisms specific recommendations can be made: Antimicrobial therapy should be stopped promptly once a diagnosis of infection seems unlikely. Staphylococcus species Penicillin allergic patient: use regimen for meticillin-resistant Staphylococcus. meticillin resistant: Oral switch: oral Clindamycin Penicillin-susceptible Streptococcus species Penicillin allergic patient: Teicoplanin Oral switch: oral Clindamycin Other organisms should be discussed with Microbiology on a case-by case basis. |
Duration of Treatment |
4 weeks in total is recommended assuming PV and CRP are normal. Gonnococcal septic arthritis can be treated for 2 weeks (Ohl, 2005). Evidence level C. |
Switch to oral agent(s) |
Evidence to guide appropriate timing from intravenous to oral antimicrobials is lacking. In practice normally a minimum of two weeks intravenous therapy is used but staphylococcal infection may require longer. Infection affecting joints affected by chronic joint pathologies [such as rheumatoid arthritis] may require more prolonged intravenous therapy (Goldenberg, 1989). If regimens are not given above, cases should be discussed on a case-by case basis. Evidence level C. |
Treatment Failure |
Please contact microbiology if the patient is not responding to the recommended antimicrobial regimens. |
Provenance
Record: | 1386 |
Objective: |
|
Clinical condition: | Septic Arthritis |
Target patient group: | Adults |
Target professional group(s): | Pharmacists Secondary Care Doctors |
Adapted from: |
Evidence base
References
Coakley, G., Mathews, C., Field, M. & other authors (2006). BSR & BHPR, BOA, RCGP and BSAC guidelines for management of the hot swollen joint in adults. Rheumatology (Oxford, England) 45, 1039-1041.
Cooper, C. & Cawley, M. I. (1986). Bacterial arthritis in an English health district: a 10 year review. Annals of the rheumatic diseases 45, 458-463.
Faraj, A. A., Omonbude, O. D. & Godwin, P. (2002). Gram staining in the diagnosis of acute septic arthritis. Acta orthopaedica Belgica 68, 388-391.
Goldenberg, D. L. & Reed, J. I. (1985). Bacterial arthritis. The New England journal of medicine 312, 764-771.
Goldenberg, D. L. (1989). Infectious arthritis complicating rheumatoid arthritis and other chronic rheumatic disorders. Arthritis Rheum 32, 496-502.
Kherani, R. B. & Shojania, K. (2007). Septic arthritis in patients with pre-existing inflammatory arthritis. Cmaj 176, 1605-1608.
Ohl, C. (2005). Infectious arthritis of native joints. In Mandell, Douglas and Bennett's Principles and Practice of Infectious Diseases, pp. 1311-1322. Edited by G. L. Mandell, J. E. Bennett & R. Dolin. Philadelphia: Churchill Livingstone.
Ryan, M. J., Kavanagh, R., Wall, P. G. & Hazleman, B. L. (1997). Bacterial joint infections in England and Wales: analysis of bacterial isolates over a four year period. Br J Rheumatol 36, 370-373.
Sorlin, P., Mansoor, I., Dagyaran, C. & Struelens, M. J. (2000). Comparison of resin-containing BACTEC Plus Aerobic/F* medium with conventional methods for culture of normally sterile body fluids. J Med Microbiol 49, 787-791.
von Essen, R. & Holtta, A. (1986). Improved method of isolating bacteria from joint fluids by the use of blood culture bottles. Annals of the rheumatic diseases 45, 454-457.
Weston, V. & Coakley, G. (2006). Guideline for the management of the hot swollen joint in adults with a particular focus on septic arthritis. J Antimicrob Chemother 58, 492-493.
Weston, V. C., Jones, A. C., Bradbury, N., Fawthrop, F. & Doherty, M. (1999). Clinical features and outcome of septic arthritis in a single UK Health District 1982-1991. Annals of the rheumatic diseases 58, 214-219.
Yagupsky, P., Peled, N. & Press, J. (2001). Use of BACTEC 9240 blood culture system for detection of Brucella melitensis in synovial fluid. J Clin Microbiol 39, 738-739.
Approved By
Improving Antimicrobial Prescribing Group
Document history
LHP version 1.0
Related information
Not supplied
Equity and Diversity
The Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust is committed to ensuring that the way that we provide services and the way we recruit and treat staff reflects individual needs, promotes equality and does not discriminate unfairly against any particular individual or group.