HEALTH OF WOMAN. 2020.5-6(151-152): 15-19
Pawel Miotla¹, Sara Wawrysiuk¹, Kurt Naber², Ewa Markut-Miotla³, Pawel Skorupski¹, Katarzyna Skorupska¹, Tomasz Rechberger^1
1Second Department of Gynecology, Lublin Medical University, Lublin, Poland
²Department of Urology, Technical University of Munich, Munich, Germany
³Department of Pediatric Pulmonology and Rheumatology, Lublin Medical University, Lublin, Poland
Correspondence should be sent to Pavel Myotla at pmiotla@wp.pl
Received: September 5, 2018; adopted on October 22, 2018; published on November 5, 2018
Invited editor: Dragana Zhivkovich
Copyright © 2018 Pavel Myotla et al. This is an open access article distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution license, which allows you to use, distribute and reproduce it on any medium without restriction, provided that the original work is properly cited.
Aim. The aim of this observational study was to evaluate the effectiveness of a phytotherapic drug (Canephron N) in preventing urinary tract infection (UTI) in high-risk women undergoing urodynamic studies (UDS).
Methods. The study protocol was approved by the local institutional ethical committee. Adult women with at least one risk factor for acquiring UTI (defined as: age over 70, elevated postvoid residual urine>100ml, recurrent UTI, pelvic organ prolapse (POP) ≥II in POP-Q scale, and neurogenic bladder) had received after UDS either a single oral dose of fosfomycin trometamol (FT) (3 grams) or a phytodrug containing centaury herb, lovage root, and rosemary leaves (5ml taken orally three times daily for one week). All patients included in the study had no pyuria according to urine dipstick (nitrite and/or blood and/or leukocyte esterase) and negative urine culture (CFU < 103/ml) before UDS. Urine samples were also tested 7 days after UDS.
Results. Seventy-two high-risk participants completed the study. Seven days after urodynamic studies UTI symptoms, pyuria (nitrite and/or blood and/or leukocyte esterase) and bacteriuria with E. coli occurred in two patients (one (2.8%) in the FT and one (2.7%) in the phytodrug group, respectively). No statistical differences in UTI incidence were found between both treatment groups.We did not observe any additional adverse events in both groups. The major disadvantage of prophylaxis with the phytodrug as compared to FT was the necessity of continuing therapy for 7 days.
Conclusion. Prophylaxis of UTI with a phytodrug (Canephron N) may be considered a good alternative to antibiotic prophylaxis use after UDS in high-risk female patients.
Keywords: urinary tract infections, urodynamic studies, antibacterial agents, phytopreparations.

REFERENCES

1. Gürbüz C, Güuner B, Atış G, Canat L and Casşkurlu T. 2013. Are prophylactic antibiotics necessary for urodynamic study? Kaohsiung Journal of Medical Sciences 29;6:325–329.

2. Suskind AM, Cox L, Clemens JQ et al. 2017. The Value of Urodynamics in an Academic Specialty Referral Practice. Urology 105:48–53.

3. Magari T, Fukabori Y, Ogura H and Suzuki K. 2013. Lower urinary tract symptoms of neurological origin in urological practice. Clinical Autonomic Research 23;2:67–72.

4. Aoun F, Peltier A and Van Velthoven R. 2014. Lower urinary tract dysfunction in pelvic gynecologic cancer: The role of urodynamics. Advances in Urology, vol. 2014.

5. Hirakauva E, Bianchi-Ferraro A, Zucchi E et al. 2017. Incidence of Bacteriuria after Urodynamic Study with or without Antibiotic Prophylaxis in Women with Urinary Incontinence. Revista Brasileira de Ginecologia e Obstetrícia 39;10:534–540.

6. Cundiff GW, McLennan MT and Bent AE. 1999. Randomized Trial of Antibiotic Prophylaxis for CombinedUrodynamics and Cystourethroscopy. Obstetrics & Gynecology 93;5:749–752.

7. Latthe PM, Foon R and Toozs-Hobson P. 2008. Prophylactic antibiotics in urodynamics: A systematic reviewof effectiveness and safety. Neurourology and Urodynamics 27;3:167–173.

8. Wagenlehner F, Wagenlehner C, Schinzel S and Naber K. 2005. Prospective, Randomized, Multicentric, Open, Comparative Study on the Efficacy of a Prophylactic Single Dose of 500mg Levofloxacin versus 1920mg Trimethoprim/Sulfamethoxazole versus a Control Group in Patients Undergoing TUR of the Prostate. European Urology 47;4:549–556.

9. Tsai S-W, Kung F-T, Chuang F-C, Ou Y-C, Wu C-J and Huang K-H. 2013. Evaluation of the relationship between urodynamic examination and urinary tract infection based on urinalysis results. Taiwanese Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology 52;4:493–497.

10. Nadeem M, Sheikh MI, Sait MS, Emmanuel N, Sheriff MKM and Masood S. 2017. Is urinary tract infection after urodynamic study predictable? Urological Science 28;4:240–242.

11. Nobrega MM, Auge APF, De Toledo LGM, Da Silva Carramao S, Frade AB and Salles MJC. 2015. Bacteriuria and urinary tract infection after female urodynamic studies: Risk factors and microbiological analysis. American Journal of Infection Control 43;10:1035–1039.

12. Cameron AP, Campeau L, Brucker BM et al. 2017. Best practice policy statement on urodynamic antibiotic prophylaxis in the non-index patient. Neurourology and Urodynamics 36;4:915–926.

13. Foon R, Toozs-Hobson P and Latthe P. 2012. Prophylactic antibiotics to reduce the risk of urinary tract infections after urodynamic studies. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (Online) 10:CD008224.

14. Naber KG. 2013. Efficacy and safety of the phytotherapeutic drug Canephron  N
in prevention and treatment of urogenital and gestational disease: Review of clinical experience in Eastern Europe and Central Asia. Research and Reports in Urology 5:39–46.

15. Bump RC, Mattiasson A, Bo K et al. 1996. The standardization of terminology of female pelvic organ prolapse and pelvic floor dysfunction. American Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology 175;1:10–17.

16. Bombieri L, Dance DAB, Rienhardt GW, Waterfield A and Freeman RM. 1999. Urinary tract infection after urodynamic studies in women: Incidence and natural history. BJU International 83;4:392–395.

17. Almallah YZ, Rennie CD, Stone J and Lancashire MJR. 2000. Urinary tract infection and patient satisfaction after flexible cystoscopy and urodynamic evaluation. Urology 56;1:37–39.

18. Ku JH, Kim SW, Kim HH, Paick J-S, Son H and Oh S-J. 2004. Patient experience with a urodynamic study: A prospective study in 208 patients. The Journal of Urology 171;6 I:2307–2310.

19. Subramaniam J. 2016. Association of Urinary Tract Infection in Married Women Presenting with Urinary Incontinence in a Hospital based Population. Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research.

20. Miotla P, Romanek-Piva K, Bogusiewicz M et al. 2017. Antimicrobial Resistance Patterns in Women with Positive Urine Culture: Does Menopausal Status Make a Significant Difference? BioMed Research International, vol. 2017.

21. Naber KG, Schito G, Botto H, Palou J and Mazzei T. 2008. Surveillance study in europe and brazil on clinical aspects and Antimicrobial Resistance Epidemiology in Females with Cystitis (ARESC): implications for empiric therapy. European Urology 54;5:1164–1178.

22. Wagenlehner FME, Hoyme U, Kaase M, FЁunfstЁuck R, Naber KG and Schmiemann G. 2011. Uncomplicated urinary tract infections. Deutsches Ё Arzteblatt International 108;24:415–423.

23. Lowder JL, Burrows LJ, Howden NLS and Weber AM. 2007. Prophylactic antibiotics after urodynamics in women: A decision analysis. International Urogynecology Journal 18;2:159–164.

24. Peschers UM, Kempf V, Jundt K, Autenrieth I and Dimpfl T. 2001. Antibiotic treatment to prevent urinary tract infections after urodynamic evaluation. International Urogynecology Journal 12;4:254–257.

25. Sundqvist M, Geli P, Andersson DI et al. 2009. Little evidence for reversibility of trimethoprim resistance after a drastic reduction in trimethoprim use. Journal of Antimicrobial Chemotherapy 65;2:350–360.

26. Levin BR. 2001. Minimizing potential resistance: A population dynamics view. Clinical Infectious Diseases 33;3:S161–S169.

27. Shepherd AK and Pottinger PS. 2013. Management of Urinary Tract Infections in the Era of Increasing Antimicrobial Resistance. Medical Clinics of North America 97;4:737–757.