Update on Antibiotic Prophylaxis for Genitourinary Procedures in Patients with Artificial Joint Replacement and Artificial Heart Valves




Infection of artificial joint replacements and heart valves is an uncommon but serious complication encountered anytime after the implantation of these prostheses. It is known that bacteremia can lead to infection of a prosthetic device. However, there is no strong evidence to correlate urologic procedures with the development of periprosthetic joint infection or prosthetic valve endocarditis. Therefore, antibiotic prophylaxis for the prevention of endocarditis is not recommended in patients undergoing urologic procedures. However, guidelines regarding prophylaxis to prevent infection of an artificial joint in the setting of a genitourinary procedure are more varied.


Key points








  • Although bacteremia can develop with certain urologic procedures, little evidence exists to support an increased incidence of artificial joint or heart valve infections in patients undergoing genitourinary procedures.



  • Antibiotic prophylaxis for patients with artificial joint replacements undergoing genitourinary procedures is recommended for patients at increased risk for joint infection who are having procedures with increased risk for bacteremia. Routine use of antibiotic prophylaxis in all patients with joint replacements remains controversial.



  • Routine antibiotic prophylaxis is not recommended for patients undergoing urologic procedures with artificial heart valves solely for the prevention of infectious endocarditis.






Introduction


Infections are one of the most common and potentially serious complications of operative procedures. Patients with preexisting implanted surgical hardware, such as artificial joints and prosthetic heart valves, are of particular interest because this foreign material may become hematogenously seeded from bacteremia induced during surgical manipulation. These infections are often difficult to eradicate and frequently require surgery to remove the infected material. As a result, the morbidity, mortality, and costs are often high. Consequently, there has been an interest in exploring preventative measures in the perioperative period, mainly through consideration of antibiotic prophylaxis, in an attempt to prevent or reduce bacteremia and seeding of implanted material. Various organizations have released guidelines and statements regarding the use of prophylactic antibiotics for patients undergoing surgical and dental procedures with preexisting surgical implants; however, these recommendations have evolved over time are not without some disagreement. This article specifically focuses on the role of antibiotic prophylaxis in patients undergoing genitourinary procedures with artificial joints and heart valves.




Introduction


Infections are one of the most common and potentially serious complications of operative procedures. Patients with preexisting implanted surgical hardware, such as artificial joints and prosthetic heart valves, are of particular interest because this foreign material may become hematogenously seeded from bacteremia induced during surgical manipulation. These infections are often difficult to eradicate and frequently require surgery to remove the infected material. As a result, the morbidity, mortality, and costs are often high. Consequently, there has been an interest in exploring preventative measures in the perioperative period, mainly through consideration of antibiotic prophylaxis, in an attempt to prevent or reduce bacteremia and seeding of implanted material. Various organizations have released guidelines and statements regarding the use of prophylactic antibiotics for patients undergoing surgical and dental procedures with preexisting surgical implants; however, these recommendations have evolved over time are not without some disagreement. This article specifically focuses on the role of antibiotic prophylaxis in patients undergoing genitourinary procedures with artificial joints and heart valves.




Scope and significance of implant-associated infection


Artificial Total Joint Replacement Infection


Periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) is a serious complication after total joint arthroplasty. The incidence of PJI is generally low, with contemporary rates ranging from 0.57% to 2.8% for total shoulder arthroplasty, total hip arthroplasty (THA), and total knee arthroplasty (TKA). However, arthroplasty is a common surgical procedure with 800,000 or more THA and TKA procedures performed in the United States each year. As a result, the number of PJI cases encountered is significant despite the generally low incidence.


The mainstays of treatment of PJI are antimicrobial therapy and surgery (debridement, implant removal, or amputation). In addition to the morbidity of the infection, extended hospitalization, and further surgery associated with PJI, there is also a significantly greater mortality. Patients undergoing revision arthroplasty for PJI have an increased mortality at 1 year of 10.6% versus 2.0% when compared with revision arthroplasty for aseptic failures.


Cases of PJI following TKA are associated with increased economic costs, with PJI being the most common indication for revision of a TKA. One study showed that PJI had a higher mean annual cost of $116,383 compared with $28,249 in controls. A study of Medicare reimbursements demonstrated a 2.2-fold higher reimbursement for PJIs compared with uninfected controls.


Artificial Heart Valve Infection


Endocarditis is a term used to describe inflammation of the endocardial lining of the heart. Most endocarditis is infectious in nature. The incidence of infectious endocarditis (IE) is low, ranging from 3 to 8 cases per 100,000 persons in industrialized countries. Patients with prosthetic valves are at higher risk for endocarditis; however, 50% of IE develops in patients with no known cardiac disease. Prosthetic valve endocarditis (PVE) occurs in 1% to 6% of prosthetic valves with an incidence of 0.3 to 1.2 per patient-year.


There is significant morbidity with IE, including the destruction of cardiac tissues and valves, congestive heart failure, embolic events (particularly cerebral complications), the need for extended hospitalization, and the frequent need for surgery for debridement and reconstruction of cardiac structures. Given this, the mortality of PVE is high, with an in-hospital mortality ranging from 14% to 75%. Unfortunately, neither the incidence nor the mortality of IE has decreased in the past several decades despite advancements in diagnosis, antimicrobial agents, and surgical techniques.


Given the associated morbidity, mortality, and costs of PJI and PVE-IE, it is no wonder there is an interest in preventing these infections.




Pathogenesis of implant-associated infection


Implanted devices are at risk for colonization with microorganisms because they serve as artificial sites that create a favorable environment for bacterial growth. Bacteria can bind to the surface, replicate, form a biofilm, and then disperse from the biofilm to allow further spread of the infection. The bacteria in these biofilms can tolerate significantly higher concentrations of antibiotics and may be shielded from the immune system. The presence of a prosthesis alone has also been shown to negatively affect the function of granulocytes. As a result, the presence of implanted material significantly decreases the inoculum of bacteria needed for infection.


Most PJI and PVE-IE are caused by gram-positive cocci; however, infection by gram-negative bacteria and fungi also may occur. In both PJI and PVE-IE, the most common microorganisms are staphylococci followed by streptococci and Enterococcus . The presence of these organisms is not surprising given their ability to form biofilms. During the past decade, the percentage of IE caused by staphylococci and Enterococcus has increased, whereas that of streptococci has decreased. Of note, the rate of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) seems to be on the increase in PJI.


Bacteremia with hematogenous seeding is the most likely route for introduction of the bacteria to the site of the implanted device after operative and dental procedures. PJI and PVE can also be caused by contamination at the time of implantation. The rates of bacteremia secondary to surgical procedures vary depending on the type of procedure and whether or not periprocedural antibiotics are used. Bacteremia with subsequent prosthesis seeding can occur as long as the prosthesis remains in place; however, the risk of PJI is highest in the early period after total joint implant (TJI). The combined incidence of PJI after TKA and THA in the first 2 years after implantation is 5.9 versus 2.3 per 1000 joint-years compared with postoperative years 3 to 10. Approximately two-thirds of PJI occur within the first year after implanation. It should be noted that these numbers take into account all causes of PJI, not just hematogenous seeding. Additionally, surgical procedures serve as only a minor overall source of bacteremia because exposure can occur from a person’s daily activities (see later discussion).




Sources of bacteremia


Urologic Procedures


Because bacteremia is the mechanism by which artificial joints and heart valves are thought to be seeded during later surgical procedures, it is important to understand the incidence of bacteremia with urologic procedures. Interpretation of many studies in this regard is difficult because the rates of sepsis are often reported without associated blood culture data and, therefore, the overall rates of symptomatic and asymptomatic bacteremia are often not known. A meta-analysis examining the use of antibiotics for transurethral procedures (eg, cystoscopy, transurethral resection of prostate, and transurethral resection of bladder tumor) demonstrated bacteremia rates of 6.1% without antibiotics and 2.1% with antibiotic use.


In patients with negative urine and blood cultures undergoing urodynamics without prophylactic antibiotics, 7% demonstrated bacteremia on immediate postprocedure blood cultures. The organisms were Escherichia coli, Pseudomonas , and coagulase-negative staphylococci. Two patients had preprocedural positive urine cultures with E coli and both had postprocedure E coli bacteremia. No patients were symptomatic or needed treatment.


In a randomized study of 50 transrectal prostate biopsies completed without periprocedural antibiotics, bacteremia was found in 28% of subjects not receiving a prebiopsy enema and 4% of those receiving an enema. Blood and urine cultures were taken 15 minutes after the biopsy. The rates of prebiopsy bacteriuria were 44% in the no enema and 52% in the enema group. Both groups had a 44% rate of postbiopsy bacteriuria. Most of the urine cultures had bacterial growth of less than 10,000 colony-forming units (CFU)/mL and none were greater than 50,000 CFU/mL. Only 1 of the 8 subjects with bacteremia (12.5%) was symptomatic necessitating treatment with oral ciprofloxacin. This subject’s blood culture grew E coli . Other organisms isolated from the blood cultures were one each of Staphylococcus , Streptococcus , diphtheroids, Bacteroides fragilis, Propionibacterium , and Gemella morbillorum , and 2 each of Enterobacter and gram-positive rods not otherwise specified. Only one man had the same organism on prebiopsy urine culture as on blood culture and none had the same organism in postbiopsy urine and blood cultures. In studies using periprocedural antibiotic prophylaxis, the rates of bacteremia with transrectal prostate biopsy are often equal to or less than 1%; however, the rates of fluoroquinolone-resistant bacteria are increasing.


The use of intravesical bacillus Calmette-Guérin (BCG) in patients with prosthetic devices seems to be safe. A phase II trial of BCG plus interferon α-2b therapy for nonmuscle invasive bladder cancer included 13 subjects with artificial heart valves and 43 with orthopedic hardware. It showed that these subjects were no more likely to develop a fever compared with the general population and there were no infectious complications of the prosthetics. Rates of bacteremia posttreatment are not known, however.


A summary of urologic procedures considered by the American Urologic Association (AUA) to be at increased risk for bacteremia is summarized in Box 1 .



Box 1





  • Procedures that involve



    • 1.

      Stone manipulation


    • 2.

      Transmural incision into the urinary tract


    • 3.

      Endoscopy of the ureter or renal collecting system


    • 4.

      Incision into the bowel




  • Transrectal prostate biopsy



  • Procedures in patients with higher rates of bacterial colonization (eg, those with indwelling urinary catheters)



Urologic procedures with increased risk for bacteremia

Adapted from Wolf JS Jr, Bennett CJ, Dmochowski RR, et al. Best practice policy statement on urologic surgery antimicrobial prophylaxis. J Urol 2008;179:1384; with permission.


Bacteremia from Other Sources


The risk of bacteremia is not isolated to urologic procedures. Procedures involving the gastrointestinal tract also pose a risk. For example, the rate of bacteremia associated with colonoscopy is 2% to 16%. Dental procedures have potentially high rates of bacteremia. For a tooth extraction or gingivectomy, the median incidence rate of bacteremia is about 65% or higher. Daily activities also can be a source of bacteremia, particularly those involving the oral cavity. The median incidence of bacteremia is about 4% for chewing and 18% for toothbrushing. These frequent events may be more significant sources of bacteremia during a person’s lifetime compared with occasional surgical procedures.


Given the risk of surgical procedures inducing bacteremia and the potential for hematogenous spread of this bacteria to prosthetic implants, various organizations have developed guidelines to help clinicians with decision making regarding the use of antibiotic prophylaxis in this setting.

Only gold members can continue reading. Log In or Register to continue

Stay updated, free articles. Join our Telegram channel

Mar 3, 2017 | Posted by in UROLOGY | Comments Off on Update on Antibiotic Prophylaxis for Genitourinary Procedures in Patients with Artificial Joint Replacement and Artificial Heart Valves

Full access? Get Clinical Tree

Get Clinical Tree app for offline access