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 formsand 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.
Antibiotic Prophylaxis in Urology Departments, 2005–2010
2013
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 formsand 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.I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.
