Antibiotic Prophylaxis at Urinary Catheter Removal Prevents Urinary Tract Infection After Kidney Transplantation

Antibiotic prophylaxis in urologic interventions: Who, when, where?

BACKGROUND

Periprocedural prophylaxis in medicine encompasses the set of measures (physical, chemical, and pharmacological) used to reduce the risk of infection. Antibiotic prophylaxis (AP) refers to the administration of a short-term regimen of antibiotics shortly before a medical procedure to reduce the risk of infectious complications that can result from diagnostic and therapeutic interventions. The outspreading growth of multidrug-resistant bacterial species and changes in the bacterial local ecosystem have impeded the development of a unique scheme of AP in urology.

OBJECTIVES

To review the literature and current guidelines regarding AP for urological diagnostic and therapeutic procedures, and to define agents, timing, and occasions when administering pharmacological prophylaxis. Secondly, according to current literature, to open new scenarios where AP can be useful or useless.

RESULTS

Major gaps in evidence still exist in this field. AP appears useful in many invasive procedures and some sub-populations at risk of infectious complications. AP is not routinely recommended for urodynamic exams, diagnostic cystoscopy, and extracorporeal shock-wave lithotripsy. The available data regarding the use of AP during the transperineal prostate biopsy are still unclear; conversely, in the case of the transrectal approach AP is mandatory. AP is still considered the gold standard for the prevention of postoperative infective complications in the case of ureteroscopy, percutaneous nephrolithotomy, endoscopic resection of bladder tumor, endoscopic resection of the prostate, and prosthetic or major surgery.

CONCLUSION

The review highlights the complexity of determining the appropriate candidates for AP, emphasizing the importance of considering patient-specific factors such as comorbidities, immunocompetence, and the nature of the urologic intervention. The evidence suggests that a one-size-fits-all approach may not be suitable, and a tailored strategy based on the specific procedure and patient characteristics is essential.

Urinary Tract Infections in Kidney Transplant Recipients-Is There a Need for Antibiotic Stewardship?

(1) Background: Urinary tract infections (UTI) are the most common infections after kidney transplantation. Given the risk of urosepsis and the potential threat to the graft, the threshold for treating UTI and asymptomatic bacteriuria with broad spectrum antibiotics is low. Historically fluoroquinolones were prescription favorites for patients that underwent kidney transplantation (KT). After the recent recommendation to avoid them in these patients, however, alternative treatment strategies need to be investigated (2) Methods: We retrospectively analyzed the charts of 207 consecutive adult kidney transplantations that were performed at the department of General, Visceral and Transplantation Surgery of the University Hospital of Tuebingen between January 2015 and August 2020. All charts were screened for the diagnosis and treatment of asymptomatic bacteriuria (ASB) and urinary tract infections (UTI) and the patients' clinical characteristics and outcomes were evaluated. (3) Results: Of the 207 patients, 68 patients suffered from urinary tract infections. Patients who developed UTI had worse graft function at discharge (p = 0.024) and at the 12 months follow-up (p < 0.001). The most commonly prescribed antibiotics were Ciprofloxacin and Piperacillin/Tazobactam. To both, bacterial resistance was more common in the study cohort than in the control group. (4) Conclusions: Urinary tract infections appear to be linked to worse graft functions. Thus, prevention and treatment should be accompanied by antibiotic stewardship teams.

Perioperative fosfomycin disodium prophylaxis against urinary tract infection in renal transplant recipients: a randomized clinical trial

Background

Symptomatic urinary tract infection (UTI) is the most common infectious complication in renal transplant recipients (RTRs). Fosfomycin (FOS) is an attractive alternative for prophylaxis because it does not interact with immunosuppressants; although 90% is excreted unchanged in the urine, it does not require adjustment for renal function for single dose prophylaxis.

Methods

RTRs were recruited into this randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. Participants were randomized (1:1) to receive one 4 g dose of FOS disodium intravenously 3 h (FOS group) or placebo (placebo group) before placement and removal of a urinary catheter and before removal of a double-J ureteral stent. All participants received prophylaxis with trimethoprim/sulfamethoxazole. The main outcome was a comparison of the mean number of symptomatic UTI and asymptomatic bacteriuria (AB) episodes per patient during a 7-week follow-up period. The study was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, NTC03235947.

Results

Eighty-two participants were included (41 in the FOS group and 41 in placebo group). The mean number of AB or symptomatic UTI episodes per patient was lower in the FOS group [intention-to-treat (ITT) 0.29 versus 0.60, P = 0.04]. The incidence of symptomatic UTI was lower in the FOS group (ITT, 7.3% versus 36.6%, P = 0.001), and there was no difference in the incidence of AB between both groups. The incidence of adverse events was similar in both groups.

Conclusions

FOS addition is an effective and safe strategy to reduce the number of symptomatic UTIs during the first 7 weeks after renal transplant.

Antibiotic prophylaxis after extraction of urinary catheter prevents urinary tract infections: A systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the effect of antibiotic prophylaxis for consequent urinary tract infections (UTIs) after extraction of urinary catheter and further explore the association between the outcome and clinical characteristics of patients.

METHODS

We systematically searched PubMed, Cochrane Library, EMBASE, and ClinicalTrials.gov databases through March 2020. Studies were included if they inquired into antibiotic prophylaxis for UTIs after extraction of a temporary (≤14 days) urinary catheter. We used fixed-effect models to obtain pooled risk ratio (RR) estimates. Heterogeneity was evaluated with I² value. Sensitivity analysis and subgroup analysis were also conducted to assess heterogeneity.

RESULTS

We finally included 8 randomized controlled trials in our study. Only 2 studies showed that antibiotic prophylaxis can reduce the consequent UTIs after extraction of urinary catheters while 6 did not. Overall, antibiotic prophylaxis was associated with reduced UTIs (RR, 0.47, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.28-0.72, P< .01, I² = 31%). Subgroup analysis indicated that patients who are older than 60 (RR = 0.50, 95% CI: 0.33-0.76, P< .05, I² = 29%) or received Trimethoprim/sulfamethoxazole (TMP/SMX; RR = 0.21, 95% CI: 0.09-0.48, P< .01, I² = 0%) or indwelling catheters for more than 5 days (RR = 0.34, 95% CI: 0.19-0.63, P< .01, I² = 0%) could get more benefit from antibiotic prophylaxis after extraction of catheters.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with catheters removed might get benefit from antibiotic prophylaxis as a result of fewer consequent UTIs, and those who have advanced age (over 60 years old) or long-term catheterization (over 5 days) could get more benefit from prophylaxis. And TMP/SMX could be a good choice of prophylaxis for UTIs after extraction of urinary catheters. This approach should apply to high-risk patients (advanced age or long-term catheterization) due to the potential harm of widespread antibacterial agents such as side effects and bacterial resistance.

Impact of Urinary Tract Infections in Kidney Transplant Recipients: A 4-Year Single-Center Experience

BACKGROUND

Urinary tract infection (UTI) is the most frequent bacterial infection in kidney transplant recipients (KTRs), yet little is known about the impact of severe UTIs. We aimed to explore the burden of severe UTIs post renal transplant on both graft function and health care resources.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective review of KTRs with severe UTI warranting hospital admission at our center between January 1, 2012, and December 31, 2015.

RESULTS

We identified 198 UTI-related hospital admissions in 83 KTRs representing 7.4% of transplant admissions; 44.6% were men and 45 (54.2%) had recurrent admissions. The most commonly isolated pathogens were E coli (47.5%) and Klebsiella (16.2%): extended-spectrum β-lactamase-producing organisms were detected in 31.3% of Klebsiella and in 25.5% of E coli. During UTI, the median serum creatinine increased from 126 to 196.5 μmol/L, then decreased to 149 and 161 μmol/L 3 months and 1 year after UTI, respectively. Acute kidney injury complicated 40.9% of UTIs (23.7% stage 1, 12.1% stage 2, 5.1% stage 3), with no significant difference between single and recurrent admission groups (χ² = 0.36, P = .5). The 1-year mortality and death-censored graft loss were 1.2% and 3.6%, respectively. The median length of hospital stay was 4 days (286 days per annum) and the estimated annual cost was £87,665 ($117,347).

CONCLUSIONS

UTI post renal transplant represents a substantial burden on health care resources and patient morbidity in terms of acute kidney injury and deterioration in graft function. Thus, applying proper preventative and management strategies is paramount.

The challenge of urinary tract infections in renal transplant recipients

Urinary tract infections (UTI) are an important cause of morbidity and mortality in renal transplant patients. These infections are quite common, and the goal of care is to identify and reduce risk factors while providing effective prophylaxis and treatment. Better understanding of long-term outcomes from these infections has led to the distinctions among UTI, recurrent UTI, and asymptomatic bacteriuria (ASB), and that each requires a different therapeutic approach. Specifically, new research has supported the perspective that asymptomatic bacteriuria should not be treated. Symptomatic UTI, on the other hand, requires intervention and remains an ongoing challenge for infectious disease clinicians. Many bacteria species are responsible for UTI in renal transplant patients, and in recent years there has been a global rise in infection caused by bacteria with newly acquired antibacterial resistance genes. Many renal transplant patients who experience UTI will also have multiple recurring episodes, which likely has a distinct pathophysiological mechanism leading to chronic colonization of the urinary tract. In these cases, long-term management includes bacterial suppression, which aims to reduce rather than eliminate bacteria to levels below the threshold for symptomatic infection. This review will address the current understanding of UTI epidemiology, pathogenesis, and risk factors in the renal transplant community, and also focus on current prevention and treatment strategies for patients who face an environment of increasingly antibiotic-resistant bacteria.

Decline in prevalence and risk of helicobacter pylori in kidney transplant recipients: A systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

The study's aims were (1) to investigate the prevalence and (2) to assess the risk of Helicobacter pylori (H. pylori) infection in kidney transplant recipients.

METHODS

A comprehensive literature search was performed from inception until September 2016. Studies that reported prevalence, relative risks, odd ratios, or hazard ratios of H. pylori among kidney transplant recipients were included. Pooled risk ratios and 95% CI were calculated using a random-effect model.

RESULTS

Eleven observational studies with 2545 kidney transplant recipients were enrolled. Between year 1990 and 2000, the estimated prevalence of H. pylori among people with kidney transplant was 50% (95% CI: 31% to 68%), with a prevalence of 46% (95% CI: 23% to 70%) in high-income countries and 55% (95% CI: 22% to 86%) in middle-income countries, respectively. From year 2000 to 2016, the estimated prevalence of H. pylori among people with kidney transplant was 35% (95% CI: 26% to 45%), with a prevalence of 28% (95% CI: 19% to 37%) in high-income countries and 45% (95% CI: 38% to 51%) in middle-income countries. Data regarding prevalence of H. pylori infection in low-income countries were limited. The pooled RR of H. pylori in kidney transplant recipients was 0.57 (95% CI: 0.33 to 1.00) when compared to people with non-transplant.

CONCLUSIONS

There has been a decline in prevalence of H. pylori in kidney transplant recipients with the overall estimated prevalence of H. pylori in kidney transplant recipients of 35%, particularly in both high-income and middle-income countries. Also, our meta-analysis demonstrates a potential decreased risk of H. pylori infection in kidney transplant recipients compared with non-transplant populations.