Antibiotic prophylaxis in Urology Departments, 2005-2010

Mete Çek, Zafer Tandoǧdu, Kurt Naber, P. Tenke, Florian Wagenlehner, Edgar Van Oostrum, Brian Kristensen, Truls Erik Bjerklund Johansen

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

45 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Background: Antibiotic prophylaxis (AP) is an important measure in preventing health care-associated urinary tract infections (HAUTIs). Despite regional variations in the bacterial spectrum and antibiotic susceptibility patterns, guideline recommendations are usually given on an international level. Objective: To describe the use of AP in urology departments and relate this to relevant parameters such as country, type of hospital, and European Association of Urology guideline recommendations. Design, setting, and participants: Data from the Global Prevalence Study on Infections in Urology for the period 2005-2010 were analysed to evaluate the use of antibiotics in general and AP for urologic procedures. Of the 13 723 patients enrolled, 8178 received antibiotics on the study days. Outcome measurements and statistical analysis: Study data were imported from the Web-based survey into Microsoft Access and exported into SPSS v.17.0. The data were then coded and analysed. The Pearson chi-Square test was used to compare categorical data and a probability level of 5% was considered significant. Multiple logistic regression analysis was used to define significantly different variables in multiple set categories. Results and limitations: Questions on AP were answered on 8370 forms and 6306 (75.3%) investigators reported their routine application of AP. Routine AP was highest in Latin America (n = 337; 84%), followed by Asia (n = 1338; 86%), Africa (n = 234; 85%), and Europe (n = 4116; 67%). The antibiotics most frequently used for AP were second-generation cephalosporins, ciprofloxacin, cefotaxime, and amoxicillin plus beta-lactamase inhibitor. Conclusions: There were significant differences between countries/regions and types of hospitals, both in using AP for clean procedures and in the types of antibiotics used. AP was not always consistent with recommended guidelines.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)386-394
Number of pages9
JournalEuropean Urology
Volume63
Issue number2
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Feb 2013

Fingerprint

Antibiotic Prophylaxis
Urology
Anti-Bacterial Agents
Guidelines
Cefotaxime
Latin America
Amoxicillin
Cephalosporins
Chi-Square Distribution
Ciprofloxacin
Cross Infection
Urinary Tract Infections
Cross-Sectional Studies
Logistic Models
Regression Analysis
Research Personnel

Keywords

  • Antimicrobial prophylaxis
  • EAU Guidelines
  • Healthcare-associated urinary tract infections (HAUTI)

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Urology

Cite this

Çek, M., Tandoǧdu, Z., Naber, K., Tenke, P., Wagenlehner, F., Van Oostrum, E., ... Bjerklund Johansen, T. E. (2013). Antibiotic prophylaxis in Urology Departments, 2005-2010. European Urology, 63(2), 386-394. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2012.09.038

Antibiotic prophylaxis in Urology Departments, 2005-2010. / Çek, Mete; Tandoǧdu, Zafer; Naber, Kurt; Tenke, P.; Wagenlehner, Florian; Van Oostrum, Edgar; Kristensen, Brian; Bjerklund Johansen, Truls Erik.

In: European Urology, Vol. 63, No. 2, 02.2013, p. 386-394.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Çek, M, Tandoǧdu, Z, Naber, K, Tenke, P, Wagenlehner, F, Van Oostrum, E, Kristensen, B & Bjerklund Johansen, TE 2013, 'Antibiotic prophylaxis in Urology Departments, 2005-2010', European Urology, vol. 63, no. 2, pp. 386-394. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2012.09.038
Çek M, Tandoǧdu Z, Naber K, Tenke P, Wagenlehner F, Van Oostrum E et al. Antibiotic prophylaxis in Urology Departments, 2005-2010. European Urology. 2013 Feb;63(2):386-394. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2012.09.038
Çek, Mete ; Tandoǧdu, Zafer ; Naber, Kurt ; Tenke, P. ; Wagenlehner, Florian ; Van Oostrum, Edgar ; Kristensen, Brian ; Bjerklund Johansen, Truls Erik. / Antibiotic prophylaxis in Urology Departments, 2005-2010. In: European Urology. 2013 ; Vol. 63, No. 2. pp. 386-394.
@article{c5640954c3594660b80545bb54772974,
title = "Antibiotic prophylaxis in Urology Departments, 2005-2010",
abstract = "Background: Antibiotic prophylaxis (AP) is an important measure in preventing health care-associated urinary tract infections (HAUTIs). Despite regional variations in the bacterial spectrum and antibiotic susceptibility patterns, guideline recommendations are usually given on an international level. Objective: To describe the use of AP in urology departments and relate this to relevant parameters such as country, type of hospital, and European Association of Urology guideline recommendations. Design, setting, and participants: Data from the Global Prevalence Study on Infections in Urology for the period 2005-2010 were analysed to evaluate the use of antibiotics in general and AP for urologic procedures. Of the 13 723 patients enrolled, 8178 received antibiotics on the study days. Outcome measurements and statistical analysis: Study data were imported from the Web-based survey into Microsoft Access and exported into SPSS v.17.0. The data were then coded and analysed. The Pearson chi-Square test was used to compare categorical data and a probability level of 5{\%} was considered significant. Multiple logistic regression analysis was used to define significantly different variables in multiple set categories. Results and limitations: Questions on AP were answered on 8370 forms and 6306 (75.3{\%}) investigators reported their routine application of AP. Routine AP was highest in Latin America (n = 337; 84{\%}), followed by Asia (n = 1338; 86{\%}), Africa (n = 234; 85{\%}), and Europe (n = 4116; 67{\%}). The antibiotics most frequently used for AP were second-generation cephalosporins, ciprofloxacin, cefotaxime, and amoxicillin plus beta-lactamase inhibitor. Conclusions: There were significant differences between countries/regions and types of hospitals, both in using AP for clean procedures and in the types of antibiotics used. AP was not always consistent with recommended guidelines.",
keywords = "Antimicrobial prophylaxis, EAU Guidelines, Healthcare-associated urinary tract infections (HAUTI)",
author = "Mete {\cC}ek and Zafer Tandoǧdu and Kurt Naber and P. Tenke and Florian Wagenlehner and {Van Oostrum}, Edgar and Brian Kristensen and {Bjerklund Johansen}, {Truls Erik}",
year = "2013",
month = "2",
doi = "10.1016/j.eururo.2012.09.038",
language = "English",
volume = "63",
pages = "386--394",
journal = "European Urology",
issn = "0302-2838",
publisher = "Elsevier",
number = "2",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Antibiotic prophylaxis in Urology Departments, 2005-2010

AU - Çek, Mete

AU - Tandoǧdu, Zafer

AU - Naber, Kurt

AU - Tenke, P.

AU - Wagenlehner, Florian

AU - Van Oostrum, Edgar

AU - Kristensen, Brian

AU - Bjerklund Johansen, Truls Erik

PY - 2013/2

Y1 - 2013/2

N2 - Background: Antibiotic prophylaxis (AP) is an important measure in preventing health care-associated urinary tract infections (HAUTIs). Despite regional variations in the bacterial spectrum and antibiotic susceptibility patterns, guideline recommendations are usually given on an international level. Objective: To describe the use of AP in urology departments and relate this to relevant parameters such as country, type of hospital, and European Association of Urology guideline recommendations. Design, setting, and participants: Data from the Global Prevalence Study on Infections in Urology for the period 2005-2010 were analysed to evaluate the use of antibiotics in general and AP for urologic procedures. Of the 13 723 patients enrolled, 8178 received antibiotics on the study days. Outcome measurements and statistical analysis: Study data were imported from the Web-based survey into Microsoft Access and exported into SPSS v.17.0. The data were then coded and analysed. The Pearson chi-Square test was used to compare categorical data and a probability level of 5% was considered significant. Multiple logistic regression analysis was used to define significantly different variables in multiple set categories. Results and limitations: Questions on AP were answered on 8370 forms and 6306 (75.3%) investigators reported their routine application of AP. Routine AP was highest in Latin America (n = 337; 84%), followed by Asia (n = 1338; 86%), Africa (n = 234; 85%), and Europe (n = 4116; 67%). The antibiotics most frequently used for AP were second-generation cephalosporins, ciprofloxacin, cefotaxime, and amoxicillin plus beta-lactamase inhibitor. Conclusions: There were significant differences between countries/regions and types of hospitals, both in using AP for clean procedures and in the types of antibiotics used. AP was not always consistent with recommended guidelines.

AB - Background: Antibiotic prophylaxis (AP) is an important measure in preventing health care-associated urinary tract infections (HAUTIs). Despite regional variations in the bacterial spectrum and antibiotic susceptibility patterns, guideline recommendations are usually given on an international level. Objective: To describe the use of AP in urology departments and relate this to relevant parameters such as country, type of hospital, and European Association of Urology guideline recommendations. Design, setting, and participants: Data from the Global Prevalence Study on Infections in Urology for the period 2005-2010 were analysed to evaluate the use of antibiotics in general and AP for urologic procedures. Of the 13 723 patients enrolled, 8178 received antibiotics on the study days. Outcome measurements and statistical analysis: Study data were imported from the Web-based survey into Microsoft Access and exported into SPSS v.17.0. The data were then coded and analysed. The Pearson chi-Square test was used to compare categorical data and a probability level of 5% was considered significant. Multiple logistic regression analysis was used to define significantly different variables in multiple set categories. Results and limitations: Questions on AP were answered on 8370 forms and 6306 (75.3%) investigators reported their routine application of AP. Routine AP was highest in Latin America (n = 337; 84%), followed by Asia (n = 1338; 86%), Africa (n = 234; 85%), and Europe (n = 4116; 67%). The antibiotics most frequently used for AP were second-generation cephalosporins, ciprofloxacin, cefotaxime, and amoxicillin plus beta-lactamase inhibitor. Conclusions: There were significant differences between countries/regions and types of hospitals, both in using AP for clean procedures and in the types of antibiotics used. AP was not always consistent with recommended guidelines.

KW - Antimicrobial prophylaxis

KW - EAU Guidelines

KW - Healthcare-associated urinary tract infections (HAUTI)

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84871921117&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84871921117&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.eururo.2012.09.038

DO - 10.1016/j.eururo.2012.09.038

M3 - Article

C2 - 23031676

AN - SCOPUS:84871921117

VL - 63

SP - 386

EP - 394

JO - European Urology

JF - European Urology

SN - 0302-2838

IS - 2

ER -