[Prophylactic oral antibiotics in urethral instrumentation]

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.

Bougie urethral dilators: revival or survival?

Objectives

To present our center's experience in managing bladder outlet obstruction (BOO) conditions using bougie dilators. We described the dilation technique methodically for teaching purpose.

Patients and method

Retrospectively, a total of 196 medical records over the last four years denoting BOO conditions in men, women, and children were retrieved for analysis. Data reviewed for common complications was namely: perforation, recurrence, urinary tract obstruction (UTI) and inability to overcome the obstruction.

Results

Among the 196 analyzed cases, 24 (12.2%) cases were cured, whereas 172 (87.8%) cases reported complications. Within the complicated cases analyzed, 134 (68.4%) cases had recurrent obstructions, 13 (6.6%) cases had perforations, 6 (3.0%) cases developed UTI, while in 19 (9.7%) cases, we failed to pass the obstruction.

Conclusions

In our center where urethral dilation technique has revived four years ago, it turned back to be the standard choice in managing BOO cases. We propose the technique to Urology training program directors, all over the world, to teach it as a compulsory skill for junior urologists to master.

Prospective randomized comparative study of antibiotic prophylaxis in urethrocystoscopy and urethrocystography

BACKGROUND

There has been a great deal of discussion regarding the necessity of the prophylactic use of antibiotics in transurethral procedures. In order to clarify this complicated issue, a randomized prospective study was performed for patients undergoing urethrocystoscopy or urethrocystography.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Patients who underwent urethrocystoscopy or urethrocystography and did not have pyuria and bacteriuria were included and divided randomly into 2 groups, either receiving a prophylactic antibiotic or no antibiotic. For antibiotic prophylaxis, 200 mg of sparfloxacin or fleroxacin were administered within a 1-hour period before the urethrocystoscopic or urethrocystographic examination, respectively. Analyses were performed on patients who were seen within 1 month after the examination, using the appearance of pyuria, bacteriuria, or a febrile infection as the endpoint.

RESULTS

Of 47 patients undergoing urethrocystoscopy, 45 were eligible for analysis, and of these, sparfloxacin was administered to 21 patients. Thirty-three of 37 patients undergoing urethrocystography were eligible for analysis with fleroxacin administered to 16 patients. There were no significant differences in the background factors between the 2 groups undergoing either transurethral examination. None of the patients in either group developed pyuria, bacteriuria or a febrile infection after the examination.

CONCLUSIONS

Prophylactic administration of antibiotics is not necessarily essential in urethrocystoscopy or urethrocystography in patients with sterile urine.