Dataset Information

Efficacy of 1 versus 3 days of intravenous amikacin as a prophylaxis for patients undergoing transurethral resection of the prostate: A prospective randomized trial.

ABSTRACT:

Introduction

There are no uniform guidelines on the duration of antibiotic prophylaxis for transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP). The objective of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of 1 day versus 3 days of intravenous amikacin as prophylaxis, before TURP.

Materials and methods

In this prospective randomized control trial, patients with sterile preoperative urine culture were randomized to receive either 1 day (Group A) or 3 days (Group B) of intravenous (IV) amikacin. All patients had their catheter removed on the 3^rd day and a midstream urine culture was obtained on the 4^th day. The follow-up was scheduled at 1 week and at 1 month. The rate of bacteriuria on the 4^th postoperative day was analyzed as the primary outcome. The secondary outcomes included symptomatic urinary tract infection (UTI), its risk factors, and other complications at 1 month.

Results

Of the 338 patients randomized, 314 patients were evaluable until day 7 and 307 until 1 month. Bacteriuria rate at day 4 (Group A: 8.8% [95% confidence interval (CI): 4.2-13.2]; Group B: 4.4% [95% CI: 1.2%-7.7%], P = 0.124, Fisher's exact test) was similar in both the groups. At 1 month, the rate of symptomatic UTI was also similar in both the groups (3.5% [95% CI: 0.8-6.9] vs. 1.7% [95% CI: 0.2-4.2], P = 0.344, Fisher's exact test). Bacteriuria (colony-forming unit, >10⁴/ml) at day 4 was a significant risk factor for developing symptomatic UTI (P = 0.006). Antibiotic resistance was higher in Group B (P = 0.002) (Group A: 7.1% [95% CI: 6.3-20] vs. Group B: [71%, CI: 38-104], P = 0.0021, Fisher's exact test).

Conclusion

One day is possibly noninferior to 3 days of IV amikacin as prophylaxis in patients undergoing TURP with respect to bacteriuria and symptomatic UTI, with an added advantage of lower antibiotic resistance.

SUBMITTER: Jayanth ST

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8173930 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundTransurethral resection of the prostate (TURP) was considered the golden standard to treat benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) for decades. However, TURP was associated with low efficiency to alleviate the lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) and a significantly higher risk of bladder neck contracture (BNC) for patients with small-volume BPH. Our study aims to compare the therapeutic effect of a transurethral split of the prostate (TUSP) with TURP for patients with small-volume BPH (<30 mL).MethodsIn this study, 101 small-volume BPH patients were randomly divided into two groups (TUSP and TURP group). The patient's baseline characteristics and perioperative outcomes were recorded. The follow-up was done at six months, one year and two years after surgical treatment.ResultsNo significant differences were observed between the two groups for the baseline characteristics, including age, prostate volume, prostate-specific antigen (PSA) level, concurrent disease, post-void residual (PVR), maximum urinary flow rate (Qmax), international prostate symptoms score (IPSS), and quality of life (QoL) score. The operative time and hemoglobin decrease were significantly lower in the TUSP group compared to the TURP group. However, no significant differences were observed between both groups for catheterization time, postoperative hospital stay, and incidence of transurethral resection syndrome (TURS). However, of the late complications, the incidence of BNC in the TUSP group was significantly lower than the TURP group. No significant differences were found between both groups for other complications, including postoperative bleeding, micturition urgency, micturition frequency, micturition pain, urinary tract infection, recatheterization, transient incontinence, and continuous incontinence. Follow-up results showed that the IPSS of the TUSP group was significantly lower than the TURP group, while the Qmax of the TUSP group was significantly higher than the TURP group.ConclusionsThis study shows that TUSP may be an efficient and safe treatment for small-volume BPH (<30 mL) with a lower incidence of postoperative BNC and better longtime clinical outcomes than TURP. It suggested that TUSP could be an ideal treatment choice for small-volume BPH.

Project description:BackgroundTransurethral resection of the prostate (TURP) is the standard operation for benign prostatic obstruction. Thulium laser transurethral vaporesection of the prostate (ThuVARP) is a technique with suggested advantages over TURP, including reduced complications and hospital stay. We aimed to investigate TURP versus ThuVARP in men with lower urinary tract symptoms or urinary retention secondary to benign prostatic obstruction.MethodsIn this randomised, blinded, parallel-group, pragmatic equivalence trial, men in seven UK hospitals with bothersome lower urinary tract symptoms or urinary retention secondary to benign prostatic obstruction were randomly assigned (1:1) at the point of surgery to receive ThuVARP or TURP. Patients were masked until follow-up completion. Centres used their usual TURP procedure (monopolar or bipolar). All trial surgeons underwent training on the ThuVARP technique. Co-primary outcomes were maximum urinary flow rate (Qmax) and International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS) at 12-months post-surgery. Equivalence was defined as a difference of 2·5 points or less for IPSS and 4 mL per s or less for Qmax. Analysis was done according to the intention-to-treat principle. The trial is registered with the ISRCTN Registry, ISRCTN00788389.FindingsBetween July 23, 2014, and Dec 30, 2016, 410 men were randomly assigned to ThuVARP or TURP, 205 per study group. TURP was superior for Qmax (mean 23·2 mL per s for TURP and 20·2 mL per s for ThuVARP; adjusted difference in means -3·12, 95% CI -5·79 to -0·45). Equivalence was shown for IPSS (mean 6·3 for TURP and 6·4 for ThuVARP; adjusted difference in means 0·28, -0·92 to 1·49). Mean hospital stay was 48 h in both study groups. 91 (45%) of 204 patients in the TURP group and 96 (47%) of 203 patients in the ThuVARP group had at least one complication.InterpretationTURP and ThuVARP were equivalent for urinary symptom improvement (IPSS) 12-months post-surgery, and TURP was superior for Qmax. Anticipated laser benefits for ThuVARP of reduced hospital stay and complications were not observed.FundingUK National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment Programme.

Project description:BackgroundTransurethral resection of the prostate (TURP) and Greenlight laser vaporisation (GL) of the prostate are frequently performed urological procedures. For TURP, a single-dose antimicrobial prophylaxis (AP) is recommended to reduce postoperative urinary tract infections. So far, no international recommendations for AP have been established for GL. In a survey-based study in Switzerland, Germany and Austria, urologists reported routinely extending AP primarily for 3 days after both interventions. We therefore aim to determine whether single-dose AP with cotrimoxazole is non-inferior to 3-day AP with cotrimoxazole in patients undergoing TURP or GL of the prostate.Methods/designWe will conduct an investigator-initiated, multicentre, randomised controlled trial. We plan to assess the non-inferiority of single-dose AP compared to 3-day AP. The primary outcome is the occurrence of clinically diagnosed symptomatic urinary tract infections which are treated with antimicrobial agents within 30 days after randomisation. The vast majority of collected outcomes will be assessed from routinely collected data. The sample size was estimated to be able to show the non-inferiority of single-dose AP compared to 3-day AP with at least 80% power (1 - β = 0.8) at a significance level of α = 5%, applying a 1:1 randomisation scheme. The non-inferiority margin was determined in order to preserve 70% of the effect of usual care on the primary outcome. For an assumed event rate of 9% in both treatment arms, this resulted in a non-inferiority margin of 4.4% (i.e. 13.4% to 9%). To prove non-inferiority, a total of 1574 patients should be recruited, in order to have 1416 evaluable patients. The study is supported by the Swiss National Science Foundation.DiscussionFor AP in TURP and GL, there is a large gap between usual clinical practice and evidence-based guidelines. If single-dose AP proves non-inferior to prolonged AP, our study findings may help to reduce the duration of AP in daily routine-potentially reducing the risk of emerging resistance and complications related to AP.Trial registrationClinicaltrials.gov, NCT03633643 . Registered 16 August 2018.