Advertisement

Antibiotic prophylaxis in TURP: a prospective analysis concerning antibiotic stewardship and a potential reduction of antibiotic use in TURP

  • E. Baten
  • F. Van Der Aa
  • C. Orye
  • R. Cartuyvels
  • I. Arijs
  • K. van Renterghem
Original Article
  • 5 Downloads

Abstract

Purpose

Antibiotic prophylaxis is standard procedure in transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP). We evaluated the necessity of antibiotic (AB) prophylaxis in TURP due to increasing microbial antibiotic resistance.

Methods

This is a prospective cohort study of 506 patients. Only patients with a pre-operative catheter/pyuria received AB-prophylaxis. Urine analysis (pre-operative, at discharge, and 3 week post-operative) was performed next to an analysis of the blood culture/irrigation fluid and of the resected prostatic tissue. Statistical analysis was performed using Fisher’s exact test.

Results

67/506 (13.2%) patients received prophylactic antibiotics. 56/67 (83.5%) patients had a pre-operative catheter and 11/67 (16.4%) had pre-operative pyuria in which a fluoroquinolone-resistance (FQ-R) rate of 69.2% in Escherichia coli (EC) was observed.

Clinical infectious symptoms were present in 13/439 (2.9%) patients without antibiotic prophylaxis; 12/439 (2.7%) patients had uncomplicated fever (<38.5°) during or after hospitalization and only 1/439 patient (0.2%) was high degree fever (> 38.5°) observed.

Uncomplicated fever developed in 7/67 (10.4%) patients who did receive AB-prophylaxis.

FQ-R was observed in 60% of the positive urine cultures at discharge and in 53.8% 3 week post-operatively.

Conclusions

Our data show a low infectious complication rate (2.9%) in patients without a pre-operative catheter or pyuria,undergoing TURP without AB-prophylaxis. These findings might question the current use of AB prophylaxis in TURP in patients without a pre-operative catheter or pyuria, in times of antibiotic stewardship due to the high rate of microbial-resistance in our population.

Keywords

TURP Antibiotics Microbial resistance Bacteriuria 

Notes

Author contributions

EB: protocol/project development; data collection or management; data analysis; manuscript writing/editing. FA: manuscript writing/editing. CO: data collection or management. RC: protocol/project development. IA: manuscript writing/editing. KR: protocol/project development; data collection or management; manuscript writing/editing.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

We have nothing to disclose.

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained for every patient.

References

  1. 1.
    Qiang W, Jianchen W, MacDonald R et al (2005) Antibiotic prophylaxis for transurethral prostatic resection in men with preoperative urine containing less than 100,000 bacteria per ml: a systematic review. J Urol 173(4):1175–1181CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Berry A, Barratt AJ (2002) J Prophylactic antibiotic use in transurethral prostatic resection: a meta-analysis. J Urol 167:571–577CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Wagenlehner FM, Wagenlehner C, Schinzel S et al (2005) Prospective, randomized, multicentric, open, comparative study on the efficacy of a prophylactic single dose of 500 mg levofloxacin versus 1920 mg trimethoprim/sulfamethoxazole versus a control group in patients undergoing TUR of the prostate. Eur Urol 47(4):549–556CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bonkat G, Pickard R, Bartoletti R, et al (2017) EAU guidelines on urological infections. Perioperative antibacterial prophylaxis in urology. In: Complete European Association of Urology guidelines. Edn. Presented at the EAU annual congress London 2017, pp 35–9Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Cai T, Verze P, Bartoletti R et al (2016) Adherence to European Association of Urology guidelines on prophylactic antibiotics: an important step in antimicrobial stewardship. Eur Urol 69(2):276–283CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Wagenlehner F, Stöwer-Hoffmann J, Schneider-Brachert W, Naber KG, Lehn N (2000) Influence of a prophylactic single dose of ciprofloxacin on the level of resistance of Escherichia coli to fluoroquinolones in urology. Int J Antimicrob Agents 15(3):207–211CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Gould I (2016) Antibiotic stewardship: what’s not to like? Eur Urol 69:284–285CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Belgian Antibiotic Policy Coordination Committee: richtlijnen voor anti-infectieuze behandelingen in ziekenhuizen. BVKIM 2017.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Wolf JS Jr, Bennett CJ, Dmochowski RR et al (2008) Best practice policy statement on urologic surgery antimicrobial prophylaxis. J Urol 179(4):1379–1390.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2008.01.068 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Fluoroquinolone antibacterial drugs for systemic use: drug safety communication—warnings updated due to disabling side effects. 07/26/2016.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    FGOV.be; RIZIV: wijziging terugbetaling antibiotica vanaf 1 mei 2018.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • E. Baten
    • 1
    • 2
    • 4
  • F. Van Der Aa
    • 2
  • C. Orye
    • 2
  • R. Cartuyvels
    • 1
  • I. Arijs
    • 3
  • K. van Renterghem
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
  1. 1.Jessa HospitalHasseltBelgium
  2. 2.UZ LeuvenLeuvenBelgium
  3. 3.U HasseltHasseltBelgium
  4. 4.LeuvenBelgium

Personalised recommendations