Antibiotic prophylaxis for percutaneous nephrolithotomy: An updated systematic review and meta-analysis

Postoperative antibiotic prophylaxis for percutaneous nephrolithotomy and risk of infection: a systematic review and meta-analysis

PURPOSE

The aim of this study is to perform a high-quality meta-analysis using only randomized controlled trials (RCT) to better define the role of postoperative antibiotics in patients undergoing percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A literature search for RCTs in EMBASE, PubMed, and Web of Science up to May 2023 was conducted following the PICO framework: Population-adult patients who underwent PCNL; Intervention-postoperative antibiotic prophylaxis until nephrostomy tube withdrawal; Control-single dose of antibiotic during the induction of anesthesia; and Outcome-systemic inflammatory response syndrome (SIRS) or sepsis and fever after PCNL. The protocol was registered on the PROSPERO database (CRD42022361579). We calculated odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI). A random-effects model was employed, and the alpha risk was defined as < 0.05.

RESULTS

Seven articles, encompassing a total of 629 patients, were included in the analysis. The outcome of SIRS or sepsis was extracted from six of the included studies, while the outcome of postoperative fever was extracted from four studies. The analysis revealed no statistical association between the use of postoperative antibiotic prophylaxis until nephrostomy tube withdrawal and the occurrence of SIRS/sepsis (OR 1.236, 95% CI 0.731 - 2.089, p=0.429) or fever (OR 2.049, 95% CI 0.790 - 5.316, p=0.140).

CONCLUSION

Our findings suggest that there is no benefit associated with the use of postoperative antibiotic prophylaxis until nephrostomy tube withdrawal in patients undergoing percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL). We recommend that antibiotic prophylaxis should be administered only until the induction of anesthesia in PCNL.

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.

Antimicrobial Prophylaxis for Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy: Contemporary Practice Patterns

Background: Updated in 2019, the American Urological Association's (AUA) Best Practice Statement on Urologic Procedures and Antimicrobial Prophylaxis outlines prophylaxis for percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL). Recent studies have challenged these recommendations. We hypothesized that endourologists do not routinely follow the AUA's statement on antibiotic use during PCNL and assessed their prescribing patterns. Methods: A 24-question survey was distributed to members of the Endourological Society. The primary outcome was adherence to the AUA's recommendations. Two multiple logistic regression analyses were performed with demographics and antibiotic preference as predictors of following the AUA. Results: A total of 51.4% of endourologists follow the AUA Best Practice Statement for antimicrobial prophylaxis of uncomplicated PCNL. No demographic data were predictive of following the AUA. 90.9% and 83.6% reported they have "never" used the first-line recommendation options of metronidazole and aztreonam, respectively. Preferred antibiotics were cephalosporins (uncomplicated 60%, complicated 52.6%), fluoroquinolones (13.3%, 7.2%), aminoglycosides (12.7%, 17.8%), penicillins (7.9%, 11.2%), carbapenems (0.6%, 0.7%), trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole (2.4%, 5.9%), fosfomycin (0.6%, 0.7%), nitrofurantoin (2.4%, 2.6%), aztreonam (0%, 0.7%), and clindamycin (0%, 0.7%). For uncomplicated PCNL, 63.1% prescribe ≤24 hours of perioperative antibiotics. For complicated PCNL, 16.2% prescribe ≤24 hours of perioperative antibiotics, while 20.4% begin antibiotics 7 or more days prior. Conclusions: Nearly half of respondents do not follow the AUA's recommendations for antibiotic choice for PCNL. Few endourologists prescribe 7 days of preoperative antibiotics for complicated PCNL despite supporting data. Metronidazole and aztreonam are rarely used as a first-line antibiotic choice for PCNL and their roles needs to be further evaluated as first-line prophylaxis recommendations. Updates on antibiotic recommendations for PCNL are needed based on current literature, antimicrobial stewardship, and contemporary practice patterns.

Prospective Randomized Trial of Antibiotic Prophylaxis Duration for Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy in Low-Risk Patients

Introduction and Objective: Postoperative infection and sepsis account for the most common complications following percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL), as high as 14% in low-risk patients. Although the American Urological Association (AUA) recommends perioperative antibiotics for 24 hours or less for PCNL, practice patterns vary regarding duration of antibiotic therapy. We aimed to compare the efficacy of 24-hour antibiotic coverage vs short-course protocol of antibiotic prophylaxis for PCNL. Materials and Methods: Low-risk patients with a sterile preoperative urine culture undergoing PCNL were prospectively randomized to antibiotics for up to 24 hours after procedure (24Hr) or continued until external urinary catheters were removed (CR) study groups. Patients were given a first generation cephalosporin, or ciprofloxacin in patients with penicillin allergy. Exclusion criteria included age <18 years, receiving antibiotics immediately before the procedure, history of urosepsis, presence of indwelling catheter >1 week, multistage procedure, immunosuppression, pregnancy, multiple antibiotic allergies, and patients who are breastfeeding. Results: Ninety-eight patients were randomized to either 24Hr (n = 49) or CR (n = 49). Mean duration of antibiotic administration was 20.6 and 34.0 hours in the 24Hr and CR groups (p = 0.04), respectively. Age, comorbidities, stone size, operative time, number of punctures, dilations, and proportion of "tubeless" procedures were similar between groups. There were no differences in febrile episodes, rates of systemic inflammatory response syndrome, bacteremia, or culture-proven postoperative urinary tract infection between the 24Hr and CR groups. Overall complication rates were similar between groups. In a subgroup analysis which excluded "tubeless" patients (24 and 29 patients in 24Hr and CR groups, respectively), no differences were seen in postoperative outcomes. Conclusions: In a randomized, prospective study, we found that a 24-hour protocol for antibiotic prophylaxis is not associated with increased risk of infection-related events compared to giving antibiotics until external catheters are removed in patients with low infectious risk undergoing PCNL. Clinicaltrials.gov: NCT02579161.

Peri-operative antibiotic usage during endourological surgery: A multi-institutional, national-level, cross-sectional audit of prevalent practice pattern in India

Introduction

Antibiotic use during endourological procedures is often discordant from the reported guidelines, despite the potential risks of antibiotic resistance, adverse effects, and health-care costs. A nationwide audit was conducted, with the support of the Urological Society of India, to ascertain the current antibiotic prescription practices for the endourological procedures and the reasons associated with them.

Methods

A multi-institutional, national-level, cross-sectional audit analyzing elective endourological procedures was performed. The data regarding the disease profile; risk factors for infectious complications; urine culture; pre-, per-, and post-operative antibiotic use; additional antibiotic use; and patient demographics were collected in a standardized pro forma. Reasons for prescribing antibiotics divergent from the guideline recommendations were also noted. Any infectious complication that necessitated the antibiotic use was also noted prospectively up to 1 month. All the data were entered into a single centralized and customized online portal on a real-time basis.

Results

One thousand five hundred and thirty-eight cases were recruited from 20 hospitals. A single-dose prophylaxis was prescribed in only 319 (20.7%) of the cases, and the majority received a multi-day prophylaxis. A combination of two or more antibiotics was prescribed as the prophylaxis in 51% of the cases. One thousand three hundred and fifty-six (88.2%) cases were continued on a long-duration prophylaxis after the discharge, with 1191 (77.4%) receiving it for > 3 days. One thousand one hundred and sixty (75.4%) cases received a guideline-discordant prophylaxis solely on the basis of the surgeon's or institution's protocol, rather than any specific case based need. Ninety eight (6.4%) cases developed postoperative urinary tract infection.

Conclusions

Multi-dose, combination and post-discharge antibiotic prophylaxis for endourological surgeries is highly prevalent in India. This audit highlights the huge potential to reduce such guideline-discordant overuse of antibiotics during the endourological procedures.

A model for sepsis prediction after retrograde intrarenal surgery and the use of the preoperative/postoperative white blood cell ratio to predict progression from sepsis to septic shock

OBJECTIVES

To study the predictors of sepsis and progression to septic shock after RIRS; to establish and validate predictive models accordingly.

METHODS

In total, 1220 patients were included in the study during. Eight hundred forty-eight patients were assigned to the development cohort and 372 to the validation cohort according to medical record. Univariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses were used to screen independent risk factors for post-RIRS (Retrograde intrarenal surgery) sepsis and progression to septic shock. Nomogram prediction models were established according to the related independent risk factors. Areas under the receiver operating characteristic curves, calibration plots, and DCA (Decision curve analysis) were used to estimate the discrimination, calibration and clinical usefulness of the prediction model, respectively.

RESULTS

In the development cohort, sepsis occurred in 59 patients, 16 of whom developed septic shock. Multivariate logistic regression analyses showed that the independent risk factors for sepsis after RIRS were preoperative D-J stent implantation, hydronephrosis > 6.25 HU (Hounsfield units), AGR (Albumin/globulin ratio) < 1.95, hs-CRP/Alb (High-sensitivity C-reactive protein/albumin ratio) > 0.060, operating time > 67.5 min, and urinary nitrite positivity. The preoperative/postoperative WBC ratio > 1.5 was an independent risk factor for progression from sepsis to septic shock. In the development cohort, the AUC (Area under curve) for predicting sepsis risk was 0.845, and the AUC for predicting septic shock risk was 0.896; in the validation cohort, the corresponding values were 0.896 and 0.974, respectively. In the development cohort, the calibration test P values in the sepsis and septic shock cohorts, respectively, were 0.921 and 0.817; in the validation cohort, these values were 0.882 and 0.859. DCA of the model in the sepsis and septic shock cohorts showed threshold probabilities of 10-90% in the development cohort and 10-50% and 10-20% in the validation cohort.

CONCLUSION

These individualized nomogram prediction models can improve the early identification of patients at risk for developing sepsis after RIRS or progressing from sepsis to septic shock.

Comparison of Surgical Outcomes between Single-Use and Reusable Flexible Ureteroscopes for Renal Stone Management: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Background and Objectives: Disposable flexible ureteroscopes have been widely used because of their cost-effectiveness and higher sterility potential compared with reusable flexible ureteroscopes. This study aimed to compare the surgical outcomes and complication rates in patients who undergo reusable or disposable flexible ureteroscopic stone surgeries (fURS) for urinary stone disease. Materials and Methods: A systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted under the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guideline. This systematic review was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42022331291). Clinical trials comparing reusable and disposable fURS for stone disease were found from PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, and the Web of Science up to March 2022. Participants were patients with upper urinary tract stones; the interventions were reusable or disposable fURS. Outcomes, including stone-free rate, operation time, length of hospital stay, and complication rate, were compared for analysis. Results: Overall, 111 studies were identified, but after removing duplicate studies, 75 studies remained. Thirty-two of these studies were excluded. Of the 43 screened studies, 11 met the eligibility criteria. There was no difference in the stone-free rate (SFR) between disposable and reusable fURS (p = 0.14; OR = 1.36; 95% CI, 0.9 to 2.04). For operation time, no difference was identified between reusable and disposable fURS groups (p = 0.12; MD = -5.31; 95% CI, -12.08 to 1.46). For hospital stay, there was also no difference between the two groups (p = 0.61; MD = -0.03; 95% CI, -0.17 to 0.10). There was no significant difference in complication rate between the two groups (p = 0.85; OR = 0.95; 95% CI, 0.56 to 1.61). Conclusions: There were no differences in the SFR, operation time, length of hospital stay, and complication rate between reusable and disposable fURS. Disposable fURS may be a comparable alternative to reusable fURS.