Samuel J Ivan1, Puneet Sindhwani2. 1. Department of Urology, University of Toledo College of Medicine and Life Sciences, 3000 Arlington Avenue, Toledo, OH, 43614, USA. 2. Department of Urology, University of Toledo College of Medicine and Life Sciences, 3000 Arlington Avenue, Toledo, OH, 43614, USA. Puneet.sindhwani@utoledo.edu.
Abstract
PURPOSE: This review assesses guideline discrepancies for urologic surgery antimicrobial prophylaxis and identifies opportunities for improvement of antimicrobial prophylaxis and stewardship. METHODS: Literature search using PubMed, Embase, Cochrane, and association websites identified guidelines for review from the American Urological Association, Canadian Urological Association, European Association of Urology, Japanese Urological Association, and Association of Health-System Pharmacists/Infectious Disease Society of America/Surgical Infection Society/Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America. RESULTS: The greatest variability between guidelines was found in prophylaxis recommendations for prostate brachytherapy, transurethral resection of bladder tumor, extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL), and ureteroscopy with manipulation. Variability was also present in recommended duration of prophylaxis and recommended antibiotic. Contradictions between guidelines existed regarding prophylaxis for patients with indwelling stents undergoing ESWL, as well as for patients at risk of endocarditis undergoing urologic procedures. Procedures with the least variability in prophylaxis recommendation included diagnostic procedures (cystourethroscopy, urodynamic studies, and diagnostic ureteroscopy), transurethral resection of prostate, transrectal prostate biopsy, percutaneous nephrolithotomy, procedures involving prosthesis placement or intestine, and open or laparoscopic procedures. CONCLUSIONS: Consensus recommendations are present for several procedures, many of which still rely on non-urologic data. Several other procedures have variability in recommendations, generally due to a lack of strong data. The use of risk factors as indication for prophylaxis in many procedures is at times ambiguous and confusing. Together, these observations indicate a need for further research to provide more robust and consistent guidelines for antimicrobial prophylaxis and stewardship in the field of urology.
PURPOSE: This review assesses guideline discrepancies for urologic surgery antimicrobial prophylaxis and identifies opportunities for improvement of antimicrobial prophylaxis and stewardship. METHODS: Literature search using PubMed, Embase, Cochrane, and association websites identified guidelines for review from the American Urological Association, Canadian Urological Association, European Association of Urology, Japanese Urological Association, and Association of Health-System Pharmacists/Infectious Disease Society of America/Surgical Infection Society/Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America. RESULTS: The greatest variability between guidelines was found in prophylaxis recommendations for prostate brachytherapy, transurethral resection of bladder tumor, extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL), and ureteroscopy with manipulation. Variability was also present in recommended duration of prophylaxis and recommended antibiotic. Contradictions between guidelines existed regarding prophylaxis for patients with indwelling stents undergoing ESWL, as well as for patients at risk of endocarditis undergoing urologic procedures. Procedures with the least variability in prophylaxis recommendation included diagnostic procedures (cystourethroscopy, urodynamic studies, and diagnostic ureteroscopy), transurethral resection of prostate, transrectal prostate biopsy, percutaneous nephrolithotomy, procedures involving prosthesis placement or intestine, and open or laparoscopic procedures. CONCLUSIONS: Consensus recommendations are present for several procedures, many of which still rely on non-urologic data. Several other procedures have variability in recommendations, generally due to a lack of strong data. The use of risk factors as indication for prophylaxis in many procedures is at times ambiguous and confusing. Together, these observations indicate a need for further research to provide more robust and consistent guidelines for antimicrobial prophylaxis and stewardship in the field of urology.
Authors: Kathrin Bausch; Soheila Aghlmandi; Sarah Ursula Sutter; Linda Maria Stamm; Hannah Ewald; Christian Appenzeller-Herzog; Jan Adam Roth; Andreas F Widmer; Hans-Helge Seifert Journal: Syst Rev Date: 2020-04-23