The value of antibiotic prophylaxis during extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy in the prevention of urinary tract infections in patients with urine proven sterile prior to treatment

Evaluating the usefulness of antibiotic prophylaxis prior to ESWL in patients with sterile urine: a systematic review and meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

The aim of this review is to evaluate the effect of antibiotic prophylaxis (AP) on asymptomatic bacteriuria (AB) and urinary tract infection (UTI) in patients with sterile urine undergoing ESWL.

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science and Cochrane Registry were searched systematically for randomized clinical trials assessing the effect of AP in patients with sterile urine undergoing SWL up to May 2020. Risk ratios were used to compare dichotomous outcomes. A stratified analysis was performed depending on the risk of bias assessment of the included studies. Subgroup analysis was performed in patients that underwent instrumentation of the urinary tract.

EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS

Sixteen studies were evaluated including 2442 patients. When evaluating all the included studies (regardless of the risk of bias assessment), the risk of AB was RR: 0.88, 95% CI: 0.64-1.21, P=0.42 and the risk of UTI was RR: 0.55, 95% CI: 0.22-1.36, P=0.19. When excluding the high risk of bias studies, the risk for AB was RR: 0.9, 95% CI: 0.63-1.28, P=0.55 and for UTI RR: 1.18, 95% CI: 0.38-3.72, P=0.77. When evaluating patients that underwent instrumentation of the urinary tract the risk for AB was RR: 0.92, 95% CI: 0.66-1.27, P=0.6 and for UTI was RR: 0.69, 95% CI: 0.22-2.22, P=0.54.

CONCLUSIONS

AP is not necessary for patients with sterile urine prior to ESWL for the prevention of UTI. Also, patients that undergo instrumentation of the urinary tract prior to or during ESWL do not benefit from antibiotic prophylaxis but further research is required.

Risk factors for development of urinary tract infection in children with nephrolithiasis

AIM

Nephrolithiasis is one of the causes of urinary tract infection (UTI). In this study, we investigated risk factors for UTI in children with nephrolithiasis.

METHODS

The data from the patients with nephrolithiasis were evaluated in this retrospective follow-up study. Patients with a history of UTI before admission and congenital anomaly of kidney or urinary tract were excluded. The patients were divided into two groups: patients with UTI (recurrent UTI and single UTI) and patients without UTI.

RESULTS

A total of 599 patients were included in this study. UTI occurred in 181 (30.2%) patients. There was a positive association between the size of stone and UTI (odds ratio (OR): 1.355, P = 0.007). Receiver operating characteristic curve analysis showed that the cut-off value of the size of stone for UTI was 5.3 mm, with a sensitivity of 74.9% and a specificity of 66.1% (area under the curve: 0.572 ± 0.028, P = 0.013). The presence of a metabolic risk factor and age at diagnosis under 2 years were significantly associated with both UTI and recurrence of UTI (OR: 2.272, P = 0.021, OR: 1.809, P = 0.028, respectively, for metabolic risk factor; OR: 1.212, P = 0.041, OR: 1.122, P = 0.046, respectively, for age at diagnosis under 2 years). Hypercalciuria was significantly associated with the recurrence of UTI (OR: 1.854, P = 0.017).

CONCLUSIONS

The age at diagnosis, the presence of a metabolic risk factor and size of stone are significant risk factors for UTI in children with nephrolithiasis. The patients with idiopathic hypercalciuria, metabolic risk factor and age at diagnosis under 2 years have increased risk of recurrence of UTI.

Risk factors for urinary tract infection in patients with urolithiasis-primary report of a single center cohort

Background

Urinary tract infection (UTI) is very common in patients with urolithiasis, which makes the treatment of urolithiasis complicated, even dangerous. The objective of this study was to determine the risk factors for UTI in patients with urolithiasis.

Methods

Eight hundred six patients with urolithiasis were retrospectively evaluated in the fourth affiliated hospital of China Medical University. All patients admitted to the study were divided into either a UTI infection group or a non-infection group. Sex, age, smoking, stone shape, alcohol consumption, position of stones, and presence of obstruction were used as exposure factors for the cross-sectional study.

Results

One hundred seventy-eight patients (22.0%) had UTI. Through a urine culture test, gram-negative bacilli were the most common pathogen, followed by gram-positive bacilli and fungi.

Conclusions

Sex, age, obstruction, stone shape, and multiple sites of stones could be considered the independent factors for UTI in patients with urolithiasis; smoking and drinking had no statistically significant correlation with the condition. Gram-negative bacilli are the most common pathogen in UTI in patients with urolithiasis.

Shock-wave lithotripsy: variance within UK practice

The objectives of this study are to determine the current treatment policies of UK shock-wave lithotripsy centres. Fixed-site lithotripter centres in the UK were identified via the national Therapeutic Interventions for Stones of the Ureter (TISU) study (n = 25). Questionnaires were completed regarding current SWL protocols for each centre, including management of anticoagulation, use of antibiotics and analgesia, urine testing, pacemakers, and arterial aneurysms. Data were collected regarding service delivery. Responses were obtained for 21 centres. Most centres use the Storz Modulith (85.7 %). Wide variation was observed in clinical contraindications to SWL, with 47.6 % centres performing SWL in patients with an abdominal aortic aneurysm, 66.7 % performing SWL in patients with a pacemaker, and 66.7 % of centres not performing SWL in asymptomatic patients with a urine dipstick positive for nitrites and leucocytes. The management of anticoagulation pre- and post-SWL showed wide variation, with the omission of anticoagulation ranging from 0 to 10 days pre-SWL. Seventeen distinct analgesia regimens were reported and prophylactic antibiotics are routinely administered in 25.0 % of centres. Tamsulosin is prescribed to all patients in 20.0 % of centres and a further 15.0 % of centres routinely prescribe tamsulosin post-SWL of ureteric stones. The included centres undertake SWL a median of 4 days per week and treat a median of six patients per list. Emergency SWL is unavailable in 30.0 % of centres. This observational real-life study has identified a significant disparity in the delivery of SWL throughout the UK, despite high numbers of patients with renal and ureteric stones being treated with this modality. Further studies should address the key areas of controversy, including an assessment of technical training, and facilitate the development of national guidelines to ensure a high level of standardized care for SWL patients.

Clinical aspects of antimicrobial prophylaxis for invasive urological procedures

The essential value of antimicrobial prophylaxis is to defend the patient undergoing invasive diagnostic procedures or surgery against infectious complications by reducing the bacterial load. Escherichia coli remains the predominant uropathogen (70-80%) isolated in acute community-acquired uncomplicated infections, followed by Staphylococcus saprophyticus (10 to 15%). Klebsiella, Enterobacter, Proteus species, and enterococci infrequently cause uncomplicated cystitis and pyelonephritis. The pathogens traditionally associated with UTI are altering many of their features, particularly because of antimicrobial resistance. Currently, only transurethral resection of prostate and prostate biopsy has been well studied and has high and moderately high levels of evidence in favor of using antibiotic prophylaxis. Other urological interventions have not been well studied. The moderate to low evidence suggests that there is no need for antibiotic prophylaxis in cystoscopy, urodynamic investigations, and extracorporeal shock-wave lithotripsy, whereas the low evidence favors the use of antibiotic prophylaxis for therapeutic ureterorenoscopy and percutaneous nephrolithotomy. The scarce data from studies on transurethral resection of bladder tumors cannot provide a definitive indication for antibiotic prophylaxis for this intervention.

[Antibiotic prophylaxis in urology]

INTRODUCTION

Antibiotic prophylaxis (AP) is used to minimize infectious complications resulting from interventions. Due to high rates of development of bacterial resistance and side effects, the use of antibiotics must be weighed on the basis of high levels of evidence. The main endpoints of urology AP are the prevention of symptomatic urogenital infections, urosepsis and wound infections. The purpose of this review is to bring objectives, principles and recommendations on urology AP according to the latest scientific evidence.

METHODS

We carried out a systematic search of MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Cochrane Library using keywords such as AP, prophylaxis, antibiotics, urological surgery, urogenital surgery and the names of the urologic procedures. The results of studies on the AP for each procedure were classified according to the levels of evidence and grades of recommendation from the European Association of Urology.

RESULTS

There are a number of good quality studies on AP about endoscopic resection of the prostate (TURP), urodynamic studies and transrectal prostate biopsies (trPB). The majority of the studies about other procedures have several limitations (sample size, consistency of definitions, statistics and trial design). Lack of consistency in the definitions of infectious complications does not allow comparison between different studies.

CONCLUSIONS

The AP is evidence-based is indicated only for TURP and trPB. It is desirable to perform randomized, prospective and controlled trials in order to rationalize the use of antibiotics, improve the cost/benefit ratio and reduce bacterial antibiotic resistances.

Aetiology and antibiotic resistance issues regarding urological procedures

There are specific indications in urological procedures [transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP), transurethral resection of the bladder (TURB), endoscopic procedures, and all interventions classified as contaminated or dirty] requiring antibiotic prophylaxis. Most postoperative infections are caused by enterococci of the Gram-positive strains and Enterobacteriaceae of the Gram-negative ones. As reported by the European Center for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC), there are increasing numbers of antibiotic-resistant pathogens. Most Enterococcus faecium strains are ampicillin-resistant and the Enterobacteriaceae have a high prevalence of extended-spectrum beta-lactamase (ESBL) producers, for which the cephalosporins and penicillins are not drugs of choice. In recent years, there are also increasing numbers of Gram-negative strains that are able to produce carbapenemases and for which the only therapeutic options are gentamicin, tigecycline and colistin. An alternative to these drugs, from a prophylactic point of view, is fosfomycin, an old antibiotic that maintains bactericidal activity against both enterococci and multidrug-resistant Enterobacteriaceae. Available in an oral formulation as trometamol salt, fosfomycin reaches high plasma and urine concentrations, and is therefore a possible alternative to other drugs both for therapy and urological prophylaxis.

Incidence of infectious complications after extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy in patients without associated risk factors

PURPOSE

We determined the incidence of infectious complications (asymptomatic bacteriuria, urinary tract infection and urosepsis) in patients without associated risk factors treated with extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We performed an observational, prospective cohort study between October 2010 and June 2013. We included all patients without risk factors who were treated with extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy for kidney or ureteral lithiasis. All patients underwent urine culture 5 days before the procedure. Another urine culture was performed 7 days after lithotripsy. No patient received antibiotics.

RESULTS

Initially 366 patients with a mean ± SD age of 53 ± 13 years were enrolled in the study. A total of 64 patients (17.5%) underwent extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy with a previously placed Double-J® stent. After lithotripsy urine culture was positive in 20 patients (5.8%), of whom 4 (1.2%) presented with symptomatic urinary infection and the remaining 4.6% showed no symptoms. Urosepsis did not develop in any case. In our study patient age was an independent risk factor for bacteriuria after lithotripsy.

CONCLUSIONS

The incidence of infectious complications after extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy in patients without risk factors is low. This leads us to conclude that without defined risk factors antibiotic prophylaxis is not justified. Also, elderly patients were more at risk for bacteriuria after extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy and, thus, for a possible infectious complication.

Renal struvite stones--pathogenesis, microbiology, and management strategies

Infection stones-which account for 10-15% of all urinary calculi-are thought to form in the presence of urease-producing bacteria. These calculi can cause significant morbidity and mortality if left untreated or treated inadequately; optimal treatment involves complete stone eradication in conjunction with antibiotic therapy. The three key principles of treating struvite stones are: removal of all stone fragments, the use of antibiotics to treat the infection, and prevention of recurrence. Several methods to remove stone fragments have been described in the literature, including the use of urease inhibitors, acidification therapy, dissolution therapy, extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy, ureteroscopy, percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL), and anatrophic nephrolithotomy. PCNL is considered to be the gold-standard approach to treating struvite calculi, but adjuncts might be used when deemed necessary. When selecting antibiotics to treat infection, it is necessary to acquire a stone culture or, at the very least, urine culture from the renal pelvis at time of surgery, as midstream urine cultures do not always reflect the causative organism.

Complications of extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy for urinary stones: to know and to manage them-a review

To identify the possible complications after extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (SWL) and to suggest how to manage them, the significant literature concerning SWL treatment and complications was analyzed and reviewed. Complications after SWL are mainly connected to the formation and passage of fragments, infections, the effects on renal and nonrenal tissues, and the effects on kidney function. Each of these complications can be prevented adopting appropriate measures, such as the respect of the contraindications and the recognition and the correction of concomitant diseases or infection, and using the SWL in the most efficient and safe way, tailoring the treatment to the single case. In conclusion, SWL is an efficient and relatively noninvasive treatment for urinary stones. However, as with any other type of therapy, some contraindications and potential complications do exist. The strictness in following the first could really limit the onset and danger of the appearance of others, which however must be fully known so that every possible preventive measure be implemented.

Complications and outcomes following extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy: a prospective study of 3,241 patients

Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (SWL) has become the least invasive treatment modality with high success rates for urinary calculi; however, its established efficacy has been associated with a number of side effects and complications. This study sought to further evaluate the incidence rate and management of the post-SWL complications and also the efficiency of procedure in a large scale of patients. During a 51-month period, 3,241 consecutive adult patients with the mean age of 38.1 years (range 15-75) and urinary calculi (>or=4 mm) underwent SWL at our referral center and were followed for 3 months prospectively. Overall, 3,614 stones [kidneys (83.5%), ureters (15.8%) and bladder (0.7%)] in 3,241 patients were treated requiring 7,245 SWL sessions. Stone-free state occurred in 71.5% calculi and success rate in 79.8% patients. The re-treatment was necessary in 37.2% patients. Auxiliary procedure and efficiency quotient were 5.6% and 0.50, respectively. SWL success rate decreased as the stone size increased (P < 0.0001). The stone-free rate was correlated with the location of the stone. During the study period, 4,075 complications occurred in our patients. Colicky pain (40%) was the most frequent symptom followed by gross hematuria (32%) and steinstrasse (24.2%). Symptomatic bacteriuria developed in 9.7% patients; Escherichia coli (30.4%) was the most causative organism. In conclusion, the complication rate following SWL was high in our study; however, the majority was mild and managed conservatively or with the minimal intervention. Moreover, the management of urinary calculi in adults using SWL was proved to be safe and efficient, particularly for ureteral stones <10 mm, renal pelvic stones <20 mm, and bladder stones <30 mm.

Antibiotic prophylaxis in urologic procedures: a systematic review

OBJECTIVE

Antibiotic prophylaxis is used to minimize infectious complications resulting from interventions. Side-effects and development of microbial resistance patterns are risks of the use of antibiotics. Therefore, the use should be well considered and based on high levels of evidence. In this review, all available evidence on the use of antibiotic prophylaxis in urology is gathered, assessed, and presented in order to make choices in the use of antibiotic prophylaxis on the best evidence currently available.

METHODS

A systematic literature review was conducted, searching Medline, Embase (1980-2006), the Cochrane Library, and reference lists for relevant studies. All selected articles were reviewed independently by two, and, in case of discordance, three, reviewers.

RESULTS

Only the transurethral resection of prostate (TURP) and prostate biopsy are well studied and have a high and moderate to high level of evidence in favour of using antibiotic prophylaxis. Other urologic interventions are not well studied. The moderate to low evidence suggests no need for antibiotic prophylaxis in cystoscopy, urodynamic investigation, transurethral resection of bladder tumor, and extracorporeal shock-wave lithotripsy, whereas for therapeutic ureterorenoscopy and percutaneous nephrolithotomy, the low evidence favours the use of antibiotic prophylaxis. Urologic open and laparoscopic interventions were classified according to surgical wound classification, since no studies were identified. Antibiotic prophylaxis is not advised in clean surgery, but is advised in clean-contaminated and prosthetic surgery.

CONCLUSIONS

Except for the TURP and prostate biopsy, there is a lack of well-performed studies investigating the need for antibiotic prophylaxis in urologic interventions.

Japanese guidelines for prevention of perioperative infections in urological field

For urologists, it is very important to master surgical indications and surgical techniques. On the other hand, the knowledge of the prevention of perioperative infections and the improvement of surgical techniques should always be considered. Although the prevention of perioperative infections in each surgical field is a very important issue, the evidence and the number of guidelines are limited. Among them, the preparation of guidelines has progressed, especially in gastrointestinal surgery. The Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) proposed guidelines for the prevention of surgical site infections, which have been used worldwide. In urology, the original guidelines were different from those of general surgery, due to many endourological procedures and urine exposure in the surgical field. The Japanese Society of UTI Cooperative Study Group has thus framed these guidelines supported by The Japanese Urological Association. The guidelines consist of the following nine techniques: open surgeries, laparoscopic surgeries, transurethral resection of bladder tumor, ureterorenoscope and transurethral lithotripsy, transurethral resection of the prostate, prostate biopsy, cystourethroscope, pediatric surgeries in the urological field, and extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy and febrile neutropenia. These are the first guidelines for the prevention of perioperative infections in the urological field in Japan. Although most of these guidelines were made using reliable evidence, there are parts without enough evidence. Therefore, if new reliable data is reported, it will be necessary for these guidelines to be revised in the future.

Optimizing Shock Wave Lithotripsy in the 21st Century

OBJECTIVE

Shock wave lithotripsy (SWL) has radically changed treatment of stone disease and appears to be the first option for the majority of patients. This review of current literature focused on suggestions for optimising technique, patient selection, results, and lithotriptor comparison for SWL.

METHODS

Literature search for SWL was performed for recently published papers in English language. Topics of interest were treatment protocols; patient evaluation; pre-SWL prediction of outcome; lithotriptor technology; efficacy; and methods to assess the effects, decrease complications, and compare lithotriptors. Earlier classic papers on SWL and guidelines for stone disease were also reviewed.

RESULTS

Recent literature contained important recommendations about SWL concerning (1) methods to predict stone fragmentation; (2) identification of factors contributing to treatment failure for lower pole and ureteric calculi; (3) guidelines from urological associations; (4) manoeuvres and changes in SWL delivery (slower rate, twin-pulse technique) to increase efficacy and decrease complications; (5) clarification of the role of medical treatment (antibiotics, alpha-blockers); (6) role of SWL in calyceal stones, CIRF, and abnormal kidneys; (7) obesity and SWL; and (8) methods to evaluate and compare lithotriptors.

CONCLUSIONS

SWL delivered in an outpatient setting as an anaesthesia-free treatment is still considered the first option for the majority of stones with a minimal number of complications. Better understanding of the physics of shockwave delivery is required, together with treatment optimisation by limiting renal damage and better selection of patients because this approach will offer maximum benefit to patients and physicians, as well as more cost-effective treatment.

Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy 25 years later: complications and their prevention

OBJECTIVE

We review the pathophysiology and possible prevention measures of complications after extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL).

METHODS

A literature search was performed with the Medline database on ESWL between 1980 and 2004.

RESULTS

ESWL application has been intuitively connected to complications. These are related mostly to residual stone fragments, infections, and effects on tissues such as urinary, gastrointestinal, cardiovascular, genital, and reproductive systems. Recognition of ESWL limitations, use of alternative therapies, correction of pre-existing renal or systemic disease, treatment of urinary tract infection, use of prophylactic antibiotics, and improvement of ESWL efficacy are the most important measures of prevention. Decrease of shock wave number, rate and energy, use of two shock-wave tubes simultaneously, and delivery of two shock waves at carefully timed close intervals improve ESWL efficacy and safety.

CONCLUSION

ESWL is a safe method to treat stones when proper indications are followed. The need for well-designed prospective randomised trials on aetiology and prevention of its complications arises through the literature review.

[Extra corporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL) procedure in urology]

Since 1980, extra corporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL) has become the first line treatment for most stones in adults and children. The indications are based on criteria depending on localization, chemical composition and size of the renal and ureteral calculi. Since the DORNIER HM 3 which remains the gold standard of first generation lithotripters, many devices of second and third generation have been built (electro hydrolic, piezo electric and electromagnetic) with fluoroscopic and ultrasound localization systems. SWL may now be performed on an out-patient basis without anaesthesia or under neuroleptic analgesia. Indications and evaluation criteria on 3 months plain abdominal X-ray are better defined since 1996. Nevertheless, comparison of reported results remains difficult due to the multiplicity of lithotripter types and the lack of consensus on efficacy criteria. Today, the third generation of mobile electromagnetic lithotripters give an average of 80% stone free rate of patients with kidney and ureteral calculi whatever the localization and size.

Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy for cystine urolithiasis in children: outcome and complications

The Siemens Lithostar Litotriptor was used to treat 6 children with cystine nephrolithiasis, previously treated by open surgery. Five children had renal calculi (3 multiple caliceal, 2 pelvis) and one had ureteral calculus. Stone size ranged from 0.2-2.5 cm in diameter, and stone burden was from 0.24 to 10.81 cm3 per kidney. From one to 4 ESWL sessions per unit were applied, with a total of 1,800 to 12,000 shock waves. The stone free rate at 3 months was 50%. A complete elimination was obtained with cystine stones in renal pelvis and ureter, however, up to 4 ESWL treatments failed in caliceal stones. Rather location of cystine calculi than previous surgery was associated with ESWL success rate. Two patients with positive urine cultures were successfully treated with appropriate antibiotics before ESWL was attempted. Perirenal hematoma was major complication demonstrated by radionuclide scintigraphy in one patient, and resolved spontaneously by 3 months. In the combined treatment of cystine urolithiasis in children ESWL, as auxillary procedure, was safe and effective in pelvis stone but failed in caliceal stones. Medical dissolution for retained fragments was found effective.