Background and objective:
Continuous antibiotic prophylaxis (CAP) is recommended to prevent urinary tract infections (UTIs) in newborns with antenatal hydronephrosis (HN). However, there is a paucity of high-level evidence supporting this practice. The goal of this study was to conduct a systematic evaluation to determine the value of CAP in reducing the rate of UTIs in this patient population.
Pertinent articles and abstracts from 4 electronic databases and gray literature, spanning publication dates between 1990 and 2010, were included. Eligibility criteria included studies of children <2 years old with antenatal HN, receiving either CAP or not, and reporting on development of UTIs, capturing information on voiding cystourethrogram (VCUG) result and HN grade. Full-text screening and quality appraisal were conducted by 2 independent reviewers.
Of 1681 citations, 21 were included in the final analysis (N = 3876 infants). Of these, 76% were of moderate or low quality. Pooled UTI rates in patients with low-grade HN were similar regardless of CAP status: 2.2% on prophylaxis versus 2.8% not receiving prophylaxis. In children with high-grade HN, patients receiving CAP had a significantly lower UTI rate versus those not receiving CAP (14.6% [95% confidence interval: 9.3-22.0] vs 28.9% [95% confidence interval: 24.6-33.6], P < .01). The estimated number needed to treat to prevent 1 UTI in patients with high-grade HN was 7.
This systematic review suggests value in offering CAP to infants with high-grade HN, however the impact of important variables (eg, gender, reflux, circumcision status) could not be assessed. The overall level of evidence of available data is unfortunately moderate to low.
[Show abstract][Hide abstract] ABSTRACT: Widespread antenatal screening has resulted in increased detection of anomalies of the kidneys and urinary tract. The present guidelines update the recommendations published in 2000. Antenatal hydronephrosis (ANH) is transient and resolves by the third trimester in almost one-half cases. The presence of oligohydramnios and additional renal or extrarenal anomalies suggests significant pathology. All patients with ANH should undergo postnatal ultrasonography; the intensity of subsequent evaluation depends on anteroposterior diameter (APD) of the renal pelvis and/or Society for Fetal Urology (SFU) grading. Patients with postnatal APD exceeding 10 mm and/or SFU grade 3-4 should be screened for upper or lower urinary tract obstruction and vesicoureteric reflux (VUR). Infants with VUR should receive antibiotic prophylaxis through the first year of life, and their parents counseled regarding the risk of urinary tract infections. The management of patients with pelviureteric junction or vesicoureteric junction obstruction depends on clinical features and results of sequential ultrasonography and radionuclide renography. Surgery is considered in patients with increasing renal pelvic APD and/or an obstructed renogram with differential renal function <35-40% or its subsequent decline. Further studies are necessary to clarify the role of prenatal intervention, frequency of follow-up investigations and indications for surgery in these patients.
Indian Journal of Nephrology 03/2013; 23(2):83-97. DOI:10.4103/0971-4065.109403
[Show abstract][Hide abstract] ABSTRACT: No universal guidelines exist for the management of patients with mild to moderate antenatal hydronephrosis (ANH). Unsurprisingly, practice patterns vary considerably with respect to recommendations for postnatal evaluation and follow-up imaging schedule. Although some clinical tools are available to specifically grade ANH and postnatal hydronephrosis, these are commonly used interchangeably with varying degrees of success. A universal classification system and nomenclature are needed to best identify patients at risk of renal deterioration, UTI and need for surgical intervention. We present our own approach to postnatal risk stratification and management, including recommendations regarding serial ultrasonography schedule, prophylactic antibiotics, voiding cystourethrogram and renal scintigraphy.
[Show abstract][Hide abstract] ABSTRACT: To ascertain practice patterns of prescribing continuous antibiotic prophylaxis (CAP) and obtaining a voiding cystourethrogram for infants with antenatal hydronephrosis (AHN) by pediatric nephrologists and urologists across Canada.
A previously piloted online survey was distributed to members of the Canadian pediatric nephrology and urology associations. Summarized confidential responses were stratified by specialty, AHN grade, and laterality.
A total of 88 of 139 responses were received (response rate, 63.3%; 95% confidence interval, 55.0%-71.0%): 46 nephrologists, 39 urologists, and 3 undisclosed. Only 17 of 88 (19.32%; 95% confidence interval, 12.4%-28.8%) reported following standardized AHN protocols. Concern surrounding the development of urinary tract infections was the main deciding factor for prescribing CAP (nephrology, 65.4%; urology, 71.4%). Almost a third of nephrologists (29.6%) recommend CAP for bilateral low-grade AHN compared with 11.4% of urologists (P = .02); in contrast, 73% of nephrologists and 38.2% of urologists (P = .02) offer CAP in the presence of isolated high-grade AHN. In regards to indications for voiding cystourethrogram, 31% of pediatric nephrologists would recommend this test for patients with unilateral low-grade AHN compared with 7.7% of urologists (P < .01), although almost all nephrologists (96.6%) and 69.2% of urologists (P = .02) would obtain this test for patients with unilateral high-grade isolated AHN.
Our results show important practice variability between pediatric nephrologists and urologists in the management of children with AHN, which are partially explained by laterality and degree of dilation. This survey reflects the lack of treatment guidelines and supports efforts to obtain high-level evidence to develop management protocols for this common condition.
Data provided are for informational purposes only. Although carefully collected, accuracy cannot be guaranteed. The impact factor represents a rough estimation of the journal's impact factor and does not reflect the actual current impact factor. Publisher conditions are provided by RoMEO. Differing provisions from the publisher's actual policy or licence agreement may be applicable.