Clinical and experimental nephrology · 2024
Prospective randomized trial of antibiotic prophylaxis for percutaneous renal biopsy.
СтатьяРандомизированное исследованиеМногоцентровое исследованиеНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Yahata Kensei, Koga Kenichi, Hirai Daisuke, Seta Koichi, Mori Keita P, Higashi Yoshiaki, Tsukamoto Tatsuo, Ishii Akira, Kaneko Keiichi, Yanagita Motoko, Kinoshita Chiharu, Osaki Keisuke, Yoshimoto Akihiro, Hata Hiroaki, Sakane Naoki
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Infection is a rare complication of percutaneous renal biopsy (RB). However, the questionnaire included in the Kidney Biopsy Guidebook 2020 in Japan revealed that antibiotic prophylaxis (AP) was administered at about 60% of hospitals. The objective of this study was to evaluate whether it is possible to omit AP for RB.
METHODS: Patients aged ≥ 15 years were eligible. Three hundred and sixty-four patients were recruited at 6 hospitals. The patients were randomly assigned to receive either a single dose of intravenous cefazolin or no antibiotic prophylaxis. The primary outcome was the percentage of patients that exhibited positive urine cultures 3 or 4 days after the RB. The secondary outcomes were the percentage of patients who were diagnosed with pyelonephritis, puncture site infections (PSI), or an infection other than pyelonephritis or PSI within 30 days, and cefazolin-induced side effects.
RESULTS: With regard to the primary outcome, there was no statistically significant difference between the cefazolin group and the no AP group (2.9% versus 5.1%, p = 0.416). With regard to the secondary outcomes, only one patient (who belonged to no AP group) developed pyelonephritis. This patient underwent urinary catheterization. No PSI occurred. There were no significant intergroup differences in any secondary outcomes.
CONCLUSION: This study revealed the incidence of post-percutaneous RB infections was minimal. Although the outcomes of this study did not lead to the conclusion that it is unnecessary to use AP for RB, the obtained data suggest that the effects of such AP may not be clinically significant.
METHODS: Patients aged ≥ 15 years were eligible. Three hundred and sixty-four patients were recruited at 6 hospitals. The patients were randomly assigned to receive either a single dose of intravenous cefazolin or no antibiotic prophylaxis. The primary outcome was the percentage of patients that exhibited positive urine cultures 3 or 4 days after the RB. The secondary outcomes were the percentage of patients who were diagnosed with pyelonephritis, puncture site infections (PSI), or an infection other than pyelonephritis or PSI within 30 days, and cefazolin-induced side effects.
RESULTS: With regard to the primary outcome, there was no statistically significant difference between the cefazolin group and the no AP group (2.9% versus 5.1%, p = 0.416). With regard to the secondary outcomes, only one patient (who belonged to no AP group) developed pyelonephritis. This patient underwent urinary catheterization. No PSI occurred. There were no significant intergroup differences in any secondary outcomes.
CONCLUSION: This study revealed the incidence of post-percutaneous RB infections was minimal. Although the outcomes of this study did not lead to the conclusion that it is unnecessary to use AP for RB, the obtained data suggest that the effects of such AP may not be clinically significant.