Home About us Editorial board Search Ahead of print Current issue Archives Submit article Instructions Subscribe Contacts Login 
  Users Online: 553 Home Print this page Email this page Small font sizeDefault font sizeIncrease font size  
Year : 2021  |  Volume : 11  |  Issue : 3  |  Page : 171-176

A randomized controlled trial to study the rationale of antibiotic prophylaxis in diagnostic rigid cystoscopy: A relook in the era of antibiotic stewardship

1 Department of Urology, Dayanand Medical College and Hospital, Ludhiana, Punjab, India
2 Department of Urology, Punjab Institute of Medical Sciences, Jalandhar, Punjab, India
3 Department of Nephrology, Dayanand Medical College and Hospital, Ludhiana, Punjab, India
4 Satguru Pratap Hospital, Ludhiana, Punjab, India
5 AYKAI Hospital, Ludhiana, Punjab, India

Correspondence Address:
Simran Kaur
Department of Nephrology, Dayanand Medical College and Hospital, Ludhiana, Punjab
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None

DOI: 10.4103/ijabmr.IJABMR_565_20

Rights and Permissions

Background: In the era of widespread antibiotic (AB) resistance, the role of prophylaxis in diagnostic cystoscopy is controversial. Aim: This study aimed to compare the incidence of postcystoscopy positive urinary culture (PC-PUC) and urinary tract infection (UTI) in patients undergoing diagnostic rigid cystoscopy with and without prophylaxis with preprocedural single-dose intravenous AB. Materials and Methods: This prospective study was done in patients with preprocedural sterile urine undergoing elective diagnostic rigid cystoscopy. Patients were randomized into two groups, with one group receiving preprocedure single dose of intravenous cefuroxime sodium as prophylaxis half to 1 h before the procedure (Group AB prophylaxis) and the other group receiving no antibiotic prophylaxis (Group NAB). All patients were followed up till 1-month postprocedure, for any symptoms of urinary infection, mandatory urine microscopy and culture at 24–48 h, 1 week and 4 weeks post procedure, and addition sample in case of any urinary symptoms or fever. Results: A total of 225 patients were studied, with 110 in AB prophylaxis and 115 in NAB groups. The use of prophylaxis did not decrease the incidence of PC-PUC (8.7%–3.6%; P = 0.167) or UTI (6.1%–1.8%; P = 0.102). Females and diabetics had significantly higher risk of PC-PUC, on univariate and multivariate analysis, not affected by prophylaxis. Conclusion: Preprocedural AB prophylaxis does not decrease the incidence of postcystoscopy bacteriuria significantly. Females and diabetics have significantly increased risk, but prophylaxis has no role in them either.

Print this article     Email this article
 Next article
 Previous article
 Table of Contents

 Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
 Citation Manager
 Access Statistics
 Reader Comments
 Email Alert *
 Add to My List *
 * Requires registration (Free)

 Article Access Statistics
    PDF Downloaded53    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal