Prospective evaluation of the efficacy of antibiotic prophylaxis before cystoscopy

Adherence to Antimicrobial Prophylaxis Guidelines in Endourologic Procedures: Frequency and Related Outcomes

Background: Surgical antimicrobial prophylaxis (SAP), when used appropriately based on evidence-based guidelines, can reduce the rate of infectious complications following endourologic procedures without compromising patient outcomes. Objectives: To investigate the appropriateness of the current SAP used in endourologic surgeries based on international guidelines and report their associated outcomes (urinary tract infection [UTI] and blood stream infection [BSI]). Design: Prospective cross-sectional study. Methodology: The medical records of patients undergoing endourologic procedures were reviewed to assess healthcare providers' adherence to international guideline recommendations. Assessed parameters included indication, duration, choice, and dose of the antibiotics used in endourologic procedures in two medical centers in Amman/Jordan. Furthermore, patients were asked to conduct laboratory urine tests to determine the rate of infectious complications within one month post-procedure. Results: Three hundred and sixty-one patients were recruited for the study. The adherence rates to guidelines regarding indication, choice, and dose of pre-operative antibiotics were 90.3%, 2.8%, and 77.8%, respectively. The duration was concordant with guidelines in only 3.4% of participants. A total of 41.8% of patients completed follow-up. Among those, 4.6% developed bacterial UTIs, and 0.7% developed BSI. Conclusion: Adherence to SAP guidelines in endourologic procedures was far from optimal. Primary deviations in the implementation of guidelines' recommendations were pinpointed. These results are crucial for planning interventions that optimize SAP utilization.

A Retrospective Cohort Study to Identify the Risk Factors for Urinary Tract Infection After Office Procedures

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study is to identify the incidence of and risk factors for urinary tract infection (UTI) after office cystoscopy and urodynamic studies (UDS) in a female population.

METHODS

This was a retrospective cohort study investigating incidence of and risk factors for UTI after office testing. Inclusion criteria included women presenting for either cystoscopy or UDS from September 2019 to February 2020. Modified Poisson regression with robust error variance was used to identify risk factors for UTI after cystoscopy and UDS in a female population.

RESULTS

A total of 274 patients met inclusion criteria. One hundred eighty-five patients underwent office cystoscopy. Nine (4.8%) had a postcystoscopy UTI. Significant risk factors for postcystoscopy UTI included recurrent UTI (relative risk, 7.51; 95% confidence interval, 1.66-34.05) and a history of interstitial cystitis (relative risk, 4.56; 95% confidence interval, 1.52-13.73). Of those with recurrent UTI, 13.7% had a postcystoscopy UTI. Among patients with interstitial cystitis, 25% had a postcystoscopy UTI. One hundred ninety-two patients underwent UDS. Ten (5.2%) developed a post-UDS UTI. No risk factors were identified.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with recurrent UTI were 7.51 times more likely to develop a UTI after cystoscopy, whereas those with interstitial cystitis were 4.56 times more likely to develop a UTI after cystoscopy. The incidence of UTI after UDS was low overall. Understanding who is at higher risk of postprocedural UTIs may help identify subpopulations that may benefit from prophylactic strategies.

A Randomized Controlled Trial to Study the Rationale of Antibiotic Prophylaxis in Diagnostic Rigid Cystoscopy: A Relook in The Era of Antibiotic Stewardship

Background

In the era of widespread antibiotic (AB) resistance, the role of prophylaxis in diagnostic cystoscopy is controversial.

Aim

This study aimed to compare the incidence of postcystoscopy positive urinary culture (PC-PUC) and urinary tract infection (UTI) in patients undergoing diagnostic rigid cystoscopy with and without prophylaxis with preprocedural single-dose intravenous AB.

Materials and Methods

This prospective study was done in patients with preprocedural sterile urine undergoing elective diagnostic rigid cystoscopy. Patients were randomized into two groups, with one group receiving preprocedure single dose of intravenous cefuroxime sodium as prophylaxis half to 1 h before the procedure (Group AB prophylaxis) and the other group receiving no antibiotic prophylaxis (Group NAB). All patients were followed up till 1-month postprocedure, for any symptoms of urinary infection, mandatory urine microscopy and culture at 24-48 h, 1 week and 4 weeks post procedure, and addition sample in case of any urinary symptoms or fever.

Results

A total of 225 patients were studied, with 110 in AB prophylaxis and 115 in NAB groups. The use of prophylaxis did not decrease the incidence of PC-PUC (8.7%-3.6%; P = 0.167) or UTI (6.1%-1.8%; P = 0.102). Females and diabetics had significantly higher risk of PC-PUC, on univariate and multivariate analysis, not affected by prophylaxis.

Conclusion

Preprocedural AB prophylaxis does not decrease the incidence of postcystoscopy bacteriuria significantly. Females and diabetics have significantly increased risk, but prophylaxis has no role in them either.

Efficacy of fosfomycin in the prevention of postoperative infection following transurethral resection of bladder tumor during periods of limited cefazolin, cefotiam, and cefmetazole supply

INTRODUCTION

In March 2019, cefazolin availability was limited owing to the contamination of the drug substance. In addition, there was a difficulty in supplying drugs alternative to cefazolin, such as cefotiam and cefmetazole. In our Department of Nephro-urology, we used fosfomycin-based drugs to substitute cefazolin as perioperative preventive antibacterial drugs. In this study, we aimed to evaluate the usage status of perioperative prophylactic antibacterial drugs before and after the period of limited cefazolin supply and to investigate the efficacy and safety of fosfomycin sodium in preventing infections following transurethral resection of bladder tumor.

METHODS

We enrolled 346 patients who underwent transurethral resection of bladder tumor in our department from April 2018 to August 2020. The patients received the following perioperative antibacterial agents: cefotiam (n = 146), fosfomycin (n = 166), and other antibacterial agents (n = 34). There was no significant difference in the median age or surgery time.

RESULTS

The median length of hospital stay was 6, 5, and 5 days in the cefotiam, fosfomycin, and other antibacterial groups, respectively, with significant difference. The median maximum postoperative temperature was 37.1 °C in all groups, with no significant difference. There were no differences in C-reactive protein, aspartate aminotransferase, and alanine aminotransferase levels determined by postoperative blood tests; preoperative and postoperative urinary white blood cell counts; preoperative urine bacterial counts; and surgery-related infection requiring additional antibiotic treatments among the groups.

CONCLUSIONS

The use of fosfomycin-based agents helped overcome the limited supply of cefazolin without worsening clinical outcomes.

Antimicrobial agents for preventing urinary tract infections in adults undergoing cystoscopy

BACKGROUND

Cystoscopy is commonly performed for diagnostic purposes to inspect the interior lining of the bladder. One disadvantage of cystoscopy is the risk of symptomatic urinary tract infection (UTI) due to pre-existing colonization or by introduction of bacteria at the time of the procedure. However, the incidence of symptomatic UTI following cystoscopy is low. Currently, there is no consensus on whether antimicrobial agents should be used to prevent symptomatic UTI for cystoscopy.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of antimicrobial agents compared with placebo or no treatment for prevention of UTI in adults undergoing cystoscopy.

SEARCH METHODS

We comprehensively searched electronic databases of the Cochrane Library, PubMed, Embase, LILACS, and CINAHL. We searched the WHO ICTRP and ClinicalTrials.gov for ongoing trials. We used no language or date restrictions in the electronic searches. We searched the reference lists of identified articles and contacted authors for related information. The last search of the electronic databases was 4 February 2019.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) or quasi-RCTs that compared any prophylactic antibiotic versus placebo, no treatment, or other non-antibiotic prophylaxis in adults undergoing cystoscopy. There was no restriction on the dose, frequency, formulation, duration, or mode of administration of the antibiotics.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. Our primary outcomes were systemic UTI, symptomatic UTI (composite of systemic and/or localized UTI), and serious adverse events. Secondary outcomes were minor adverse events, localized UTI, asymptomatic bacteriuria, and bacterial resistance. We assessed the quality of evidence using GRADE.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 20 RCTs and two quasi-RCTs with 7711 participants, all of which compared antibiotic prophylaxis with placebo or no treatment control. We found no studies comparing antibiotic prophylaxis with non-antibiotic prophylaxis.Primary outcomesSystemic UTI: antibiotic prophylaxis may have little or no effect on the risk of systemic UTI compared with placebo or no treatment (risk ratio (RR) 1.12, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.38 to 3.32; 5 RCTs; 504 participants; low-quality evidence); this corresponds to two more people (95% CI 12 fewer to 46 more) per 1000 people developing a systemic UTI. We downgraded the quality of the evidence for study limitations and imprecision.Symptomatic UTI: antibiotic prophylaxis may reduce the risk of symptomatic UTI (RR 0.49, 95% CI 0.28 to 0.86; 11 RCTs; 5441 participants; low-quality evidence); this corresponds to 30 fewer people (95% CI 42 fewer to 8 fewer) per 1000 people developing a symptomatic UTI when provided with antibiotic prophylaxis. We downgraded the quality of the evidence for study limitations and potential publication bias.Serious adverse events: the studies reported no serious adverse events in either the intervention group or control group and no effect size could be calculated. Antibiotic prophylaxis may have little or no effect on serious adverse events (4 RCTs, 630 participants; very low-quality evidence), but we are very uncertain of this finding. We downgraded the quality of the evidence for study limitations and very serious imprecision.Secondary outcomesMinor adverse events: prophylactic antibiotics may have little or no effect on minor adverse events when compared with placebo or no treatment (RR 2.82, 95% CI 0.54 to 14.80; 4 RCTs; 630 participants; low-quality evidence). We downgraded the quality of the evidence for study limitations and imprecision.Localized UTI: prophylactic antibiotics may have little or no effect on the risk of localized UTI (RR 1.0, 95% CI 0.06 to 15.77; 1 RCT; 200 participants; very low-quality evidence), but we were very uncertain of this finding. We downgraded the quality of the evidence for study limitations and very serious imprecision.Bacterial resistance: prophylactic antibiotics may increase bacterial resistance (RR 1.73, 95% CI 1.04 to 2.87; 38 participants; 2 RCTs; very low-quality evidence), but we were uncertain of this finding. We downgraded the quality of the evidence for study limitations, indirectness, and imprecision.We were able to perform few secondary analyses; these did not suggest any subgroup effects.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Antibiotic prophylaxis may reduce the risk of symptomatic UTI but not systemic UTIs. Serious and minor adverse events may not be increased with the use of antibiotic prophylaxis. The findings are informed by low- and very low-quality evidence ratings for all outcomes.

Efficacy of antibiotic prophylaxis in cystoscopy to prevent urinary tract infection: a systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To estimate the efficacy of antibiotic prophylaxis to prevent urinary tract infection in patients (both gender) who undergo a cystoscopy with sterile urine.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Search strategy (January 1980-December 2013) in Medline via PubMed, CENTRAL, and EMBASE. Additionally, we searched databases for registered trials and conference abstracts, as well as reference lists of systematic reviews and included studies. Seven published randomized clinical trials (January 1, 1980 to December 31, 2013) were included in quantitative analyses with no language restrictions. Two independent reviewers collected data. Risk of bias was evaluated with the Cochrane Collaboration tool. We performed a fixed effect analyses due to statistical homogeneity. The primary outcome was urinary tract infection and the secondary was asymptomatic bacteriuria. The effect measure was the risk difference (RD) with 95% confidence interval. The planned interventions were: Antibiotic vs placebo; Antibiotic vs no intervention and Antibiotic vs any other intervention.

RESULTS

3038 patients were found in seven studies. For the primary outcome, we included 5 studies and we found a RR 0.53 CI95% (0.31, 0.90) and a RD-0.012 CI95% (-0.023,-0.002), favoring antibiotic prophylaxis. For asymptomatic bacteriuria we included 6 studies and we found a RR 0.28 CI95% (0.20, 0.39) and a RD-0.055 CI95% (-0.07,-0.039), was found favoring prophylaxis. According to GRADE evaluation, we considered moderate quality of evidence for both outcomes. The subgroup analysis showed that only two studies were classified as having low risk of bias: Cam 2009 and Garcia-Perdomo 2013. They showed no statistical differences (RD-0.009 CI95% -0.03, 0.011).

CONCLUSIONS

Based on studies classified as low risk of bias, we found moderate evidence to not recommend the use of antibiotic prophylaxis to prevent urinary tract infection and asymptomatic bacteriuria in patients who undergo cystoscopy with sterile urine in an ambulatory setting.

Antibiotic prophylaxis for transurethral urological surgeries: Systematic review

The use of antibiotic prophylaxis to prevent urinary tract infection and bacteremia (sepsis) following endoscopic urologic procedures is a controversial topic. Evidence in the literature revealed that urological instrumentation is associated with increased incidence of urinary tract infection and bacteremia. The aim of this review is to evaluate the effectiveness of antibiotic prophylaxis in reducing the risk of urinary tract infection in patients who had transurethral urological surgeries. We have selected all RCTs of adult population who underwent all different types of transurethral urological surgery, including cystoscopy, transurethral resection of prostate and transurethral resection of bladder tumor, and received prophylactic antibiotics or placebo/no treatment. At first, more than 3000 references were identified and reviewed; of which 42 studies with a total of 7496 patients were included in the final analysis. All those trials were analyzing antibiotic prophylaxis versus placebo/no treatment, and they were significantly favoring antibiotic use in reducing all outcomes, including bacteriuria (RR 0.36, 95% CI 0.29 to 0.46, P < 0.0001) with moderate heterogeneity detected (I² 48%), symptomatic UTI (RR 0.38, 95% CI 0.28 to 0.51, P < 0.0001) with no significant heterogeneity was detected (I²= 17%), bacteremia (RR 0.43, 95% CI 0.23 to 0.82, P < 0.0001) with no noted heterogeneity (I² = 0%), and fever ≥38.5 Celsius (RR 0.41, 95% CI 0.23 to 0.73, P = 0.003); also, there was no noted heterogeneity (I² = 0%). However, using antibiotic prophylaxis did not reduce the incidence of low grade temperature (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.61 to 1.11, P = 0.20) or in moderate grade temperature (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.71 to 1.48, P = 0.89). Antibiotic prophylaxis appears to be an effective intervention in preventing urinary tract infections and its sequels following transurethral urological surgeries in patients with preoperative sterile urine.

Risk of urinary tract infection after detrusor botulinum toxin A injections for refractory neurogenic detrusor overactivity in patients with no antibiotic treatment

OBJECTIVE

To determine if antibiotic prophylaxis is required for intradetrusor botulinum toxin A (BoNT-A) injections.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

This was a prospective non-randomized study. Inclusion criteria were adult patients with neurogenic detrusor overactivity who failed anticholinergic-based first-line treatment and had sterile urine culture 7 days before injections, a negative dipstick test on the day of the injections, and were performing clean intermittent self-catheterization. Injections were performed using a rigid cystoscope, under local anaesthetic. Patients received BoNT-A as either Botox® (Allergan Inc., Irvine, CA, USA) 300 U in 30 sites or Dysport® (Ipsen Ltd, Ipsen, Paris, France) 750 U in 20 sites. Urine culture was done 6 days and 6 weeks after the injections. If urinary tract infection (UTI) was suspected, a physician performed a complete physical examination. The primary outcome criterion was the occurrence of UTI during the first week after injections.

RESULTS

In all, 42 patients (22 women, 20 men) with a mean (sd) age 45.3 (16.4) years were included. A symptomatic UTI occurred during the first week after the injections in three patients (7.1%). The urinary colonization rate was 31% and 26% at 6 days and 6 weeks after injection, respectively. The most common bacterium was Escherichia coli (62.5%). There were no differences between 20 and 30 injection sites or between the sexes.

CONCLUSION

The rate of UTI after intradetrusor injections of BoNT-A was 7.1%. The most frequent bacterium involved was Escherichia coli. These results indicate that antibiotic prophylaxis for intradetrusor BoNT-A injections seems necessary.