Assessment of Antibiotic Prophylaxis Prescribing Patterns for TURP: A Need for Canadian Guidelines?

Authors

  • Keith A. Lawson Southern Alberta Institute of Urology, Division of Urology, Department of Surgery, University of Calgary, Calgary, AB
  • Jan K. Rudzinski Southern Alberta Institute of Urology, Division of Urology, Department of Surgery, University of Calgary, Calgary, AB
  • Ingrid Vicas Physician Learning Program, University of Calgary, Calgary, AB
  • Kevin V. Carlson Southern Alberta Institute of Urology, Division of Urology, Department of Surgery, University of Calgary, Calgary, AB

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.5489/cuaj.205

Abstract

Background: While antibiotic prophylaxis is recommended to all patients undergoing transurethral resection of prostate (TURP), little data exist regarding prescribing patterns of urologists prior to this procedure. Here, we sought to determine real-world antibiotic prophylaxis prescribing patterns at a high volume Canadian institution and determine compliance rates to recommendations put forth by the American Urological Association’s (AUA) Best Practice Statement (BPS) on antimicrobial prophylaxis.

Methods: A retrospective chart review of 488 patients undergoing TURP was conducted. Electronic medical records were reviewed to determine antibiotics prescribed 3 hours preoperatively and 24 hours postoperatively. For patients without a catheter, compliance was defined as those receiving an antibiotic prior to TURP. In patients with an indwelling catheter, compliance was defined as those receiving antibiotics from two different classes prior to surgery.

Results: Overall, a total of 30 antibiotic regimens were utilized.The most common single antibiotic regimens prescribed were ciprofloxacin (32%), cefazolin (25%) and gentamicin (3%). In those patients with indwelling Foley catheters prior to TURP, a significant increase in gentamicin, as well as combination antibiotic regimens, was noted. The compliance rate with the AUA BPS in patients without a preoperative catheter was 81%, while the compliance rate for patients with an indwelling catheter prior to TURP was 37%.

Interpretation: Collectively, our results demonstrate that prescribing patterns vary significantly prior to TURP, with compliance to AUA BPS being lower than anticipated. Overall, these results support educational efforts in this area, and the development of Canadian

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Downloads

Published

2013-08-19

How to Cite

Lawson, K. A., Rudzinski, J. K., Vicas, I., & Carlson, K. V. (2013). Assessment of Antibiotic Prophylaxis Prescribing Patterns for TURP: A Need for Canadian Guidelines?. Canadian Urological Association Journal, 7(7-8), e530–6. https://doi.org/10.5489/cuaj.205

Issue

Vol. 7 No. 7-8 (2013): CUAJ August

Section

Original Research

License

You, the Author(s), assign your copyright in and to the Article to the Canadian Urological Association. This means that you may not, without the prior written permission of the CUA:

  • Post the Article on any Web site
  • Translate or authorize a translation of the Article
  • Copy or otherwise reproduce the Article, in any format, beyond what is permitted under Canadian copyright law, or authorize others to do so
  • Copy or otherwise reproduce portions of the Article, including tables and figures, beyond what is permitted under Canadian copyright law, or authorize others to do so.

The CUA encourages use for non-commercial educational purposes and will not unreasonably deny any such permission request.

You retain your moral rights in and to the Article. This means that the CUA may not assert its copyright in such a way that would negatively reflect on your reputation or your right to be associated with the Article.

The CUA also requires you to warrant the following:

  • That you are the Author(s) and sole owner(s), that the Article is original and unpublished and that you have not previously assigned copyright or granted a licence to any other third party;
  • That all individuals who have made a substantive contribution to the article are acknowledged;
  • That the Article does not infringe any proprietary right of any third party and that you have received the permissions necessary to include the work of others in the Article; and
  • That the Article does not libel or violate the privacy rights of any third party.