| |
|
|
| Year : 2010 | Volume
: 21
| Issue : 5 | Page : 876-880 |
|
| Urinary tract infections in the era of newer immunosuppressant agents : A tertiary care center study |
|
|
Pallavi Khanna, Georgi Abraham, Asik Ali Mohamed Ali, Prathiba Evelyn Miriam, Milly Mathew, MK Lalitha, Nancy Lesley
Pondicherry Institute of Medical Sciences, Madras Medical Mission, Chennai, India
Click here for correspondence address and email
| Date of Web Publication | 31-Aug-2010 |
|
|
 |
|
 Abstract | | |
We studied the incidence and the risk factors predisposing to post transplantation urinary tract infection (UTI) and the association with use of different immunosuppressive regimens. We performed a retrospective analysis of 152 recipients of renal transplantation over a period of two years. Seventy one (46.71%) patients had culture positive UTI, Escherichia coli (45.1%) being the commonest. Thirty four (22.39%) patients had acute rejection and 14.4% of those had suffered UTI in the early post transplant period. Immunosuppression included induction with various antibodies and maintenance on antirejection medications. Trimethoprim-sulphamethoxazole was given as prophylaxis throughout the period. The UTI was treated according to microbiological sensitivity. 2.8% died due to urosepsis. In our retrospective analysis renal transplant recipients under the age of 45, female gender and diabetics suffered more UTI. Combination therapy with micro-emulsion form of cyclosporine A, prednisolone and azathioprine developed more UTI (P= 0.0418).
How to cite this article:
Khanna P, Abraham G, Mohamed Ali AA, Miriam PE, Mathew M, Lalitha M K, Lesley N. Urinary tract infections in the era of newer immunosuppressant agents : A tertiary care center study. Saudi J Kidney Dis Transpl 2010;21:876-80 |
How to cite this URL:
Khanna P, Abraham G, Mohamed Ali AA, Miriam PE, Mathew M, Lalitha M K, Lesley N. Urinary tract infections in the era of newer immunosuppressant agents : A tertiary care center study. Saudi J Kidney Dis Transpl [serial online] 2010 [cited 2022 May 23];21:876-80. Available from: https://www.sjkdt.org/text.asp?2010/21/5/876/68884 |
| Introduction | |  |
Screening for Urinary Tract Infection (UTI) is undertaken regularly in the immediate post transplant period and at less often intervals thereafter. Prophylaxis against Pneumocystis jerovicii pneumonia, listeriosis, nocardiosis and UTI is instituted since they are prone to infections in the early post transplant period. [1],[2] In the early post-transplantation period UTI account for 60% of gram negative bacteremia thereby increasing the morbidity and mortality. [3]
Regular urine cultures may detect asymptomatic and significant UTI. The typical causative micro-organisms are the enteric gram negative bacilli and enterococci. Risk factors are old age, [4] female gender [5] and agents such as mycophenolate mofetil (MMF) and cyclosporine, ureteric stents, indwelling bladder catheters, [6] pre-operative UTI and rejection episodes.
We undertook a study for the incidence and risk factors predisposing to post transplant UTI and its association with different immunosuppressive regimen.
| Subjects and Methods | | |
The retrospective study consisted of 152 patients (M=114, F=38) who had undergone renal transplantation between February 2005 and February 2007 in a tertiary care centre. All patients with documented UTI during the follow up were included in the study. Patients with inadequate medical record and inconclusive urine culture were excluded from the study and a total of 71 patients were therefore analyzed after exclusion. The usual practice at our center is to remove the urinary catheter by the fifth post operative day and by the tenth day in complicated cases. A double J ureteric stent was used in two patients for post operative ureteric leak after surgical reimplantation of ureter. Cefuroxime 1.5 g as single dose was used as perioperative antibiotic prophylaxis.
Triple immunosuppression with micro emulsion form of cyclosporine A (Neoral) 8 mg/kg in divided doses, prednisolone (0.5 mg/kg) and Mycophenolate Mofetil (MMF), 1 g twice a day, was commonest, 29.6%. Other combinations of immunosuppression included, cyclosporine/prednisolone/sodium salt of mycophenolic acid (NaMPA) 360 mg-720 mg twice a day in 25.4% and tacrolimus (0.15 mg/kg/day in divided doses)/prednisolone/MMF in 15.5%. A few other patients were taking different combinations of azathioprine 2.5 mg/kg, tacrolimus 0. 15 mg/kg/day in divided doses and sirolimus 2 mg-6 mg/day.
All patients with allograft dysfunction without evidence of obstruction thought to be due to rejection underwent an ultrasound guided allograft biopsy. The biopsy proven acute cellular and vascular rejection episodes were treated with injection methylprednisolone 0.5 g to 1 g i.v. boluses for three to five days and a change in baseline immunosuppressant regimen.
The patients received double strength trimethoprim (TMX 160 mg)-sulphamethoxazole (SMX 800 mg) three times a week as prophylaxis against UTI and Pneumocystis jerovicii pneumonia. The mid stream urine sample was sent for culture immediately prior to transplantation except in anuric patients. A urine sample taken from the indwelling catheter without disconnecting the transfer set, with a sterile syringe and needle, was sent on day three, five and eight in all recipients. A mid stream sterile urine sample was sent from patients after removal of urinary catheter. The bacterial growth of 10 5 CFU per mL was considered significant in mid stream urine sample and any growth from the catheter specimen was considered significant. We classified infections as those occurring within 48 hours after surgery as early whereas those which developed after 48 hours of transplant surgery as late infections.
| Statistical Analysis | | |
Statistical analysis was performed using the SPSS software package, version 12.0. Comparison was done with Student's t-test and chisquare test. Variables with P value of < 0.05 were considered statistically significant.
| Results | | |
Among the 152 patients, 71 (46.71%) were diagnosed with urinary tract infection. Baseline demography and clinical characteristics of the UTI study group (n=71) are given in [Table 1].
The rate of infection was 57.89% in females and 42.89% in males: 53.5% of the infected patients were below 45 years of age. Amongst those with urinary tract infection, 69 (97.18%) were hypertensive and 24 (33.8%) were diabetic. Among eight patients with pre-transplantation positive urine cultures, almost all six (75.5%) patients developed post operative UTI also.
The data showed that 97.2% had late onset of UTI. Thirty four out of 152 patients developed acute rejection, and 14.4% of these patients had suffered from post transplant UTI. Acute biopsy proven cellular rejection of Banff grade I and II was seen in 21 patients. The septicemia rate in these patients was 2.8% and the causative organism was non-fermenting gram negative bacilli including Klebsiella species.
The causative organisms isolated in urine culture is shown in [Figure 1]. | Figure 1 :Organisms isolated from urine of renal allograft recipients in the post transplant period.
Click here to view |
Significant association (0.0418) of UTI was observed only for the combination of cyclosporine, prednisolone and azathioprine. Induction with basiliximab was associated with more UTI.
The antibiotics used for treatment of UTI as per the culture and sensitivity reports were ofloxacin, cefoperazone/sulbactam, nitrofurantoin, meropenem and levofloxacin. The duration of treatment was 7-21 days. Those who had recurrence of infection were given a second course of antibiotic therapy and were put on low dose nitrofurantoin prophylaxis of 100 to 200 mg at bedtime for 1-3 months. Mortality rate among the patients was 2.8%.
| Discussion | | |
The prevention and treatment of infections remains an integral part of clinical management of renal transplant recipients. The pharmacotherapy for transplant recipient has two components: an immunosuppressant regimen to prevent and treat rejection and an antimicrobial cover to make it safe. [7] The right approach should be individualization of the treatment regimen. Interplay of the four major factors determines the risk of infection: presence of anatomical/technical abnormalities, recent and remote environmental exposures, the net state of immunosuppression and the effects of the Darwinian competition. [8] Young women and men who are sexually active may have more episodes of UTI. [9] We found that recipients under 45 years of age and females are more susceptible to UTI.
There is an emerging trend for resistance to antimicrobial agents used for prophylaxis and treatment of UTI in developing countries. In our retrospective analysis, inspite of antimicrobial prophylaxis (TMP-SMX), 46.71% developed UTI, a third of them were diabetics and 14.4% had biopsy proven rejection. As a sizable population of renal transplant recipients are diabetic, the immunosuppressive agents, poor bladder function, incomplete voiding and impaired cytokine secretion may contribute to UTI in such patients Certain severe clinical presentations such as emphysematous cystitis, pyelonephritis, perinephric abscess and papillary necrosis are virtually unique to diabetic patients. [10] Diabetes is also a risk factor for development of fungal UTI. Severe and recurrent UTI presenting in the latter period warrant further work up for abnormalities such as bladder dysfunction, prostatic hypertrophy, stricture of the lower end of ureter and stones. [11]
In our study the commonest etiological agent for UTI was E. coli in 45.1% followed by Staphylococcus epidermidis in 26.76%, Klebsiella species in 18.32% and co-infection with multiple organism in a few patients. The pathogenicity of E. coli is increased in the urothelium as it expresses type 1 or P fimbriae. Other organisms maybe associated with renal, ureteral or bladder calculi, which act as infective foci. Corynebacterium urealyticum  fficult to isolate, and is not sensitive to the conventional oral antibiotics, has been recognized as a potential new pathogen. [12]
Post transplantation UTI can result in graft dysfunction through free-radical production, inflammatory cytokine response, CMV reactivation and pyelonephritis induced scarring. On the other hand, acute rejection requiring an increase in the immunosuppressive medications may result in poor inflammatory response against the bacteria thus predisposing to urinary tract infections as seen in 14.4% of our study cohort.
Immunosuppressive medications suppress the humoral immunity through B-cell inhibition and prevention of lymphocyte migration to the site of inflammation such as MMF and others have been incriminated in lowering the IgG levels. [13],[14],[15] In our cohort of patients with UTI, the combination of cyclosporine, prednisolone and azathioprine was associate with more episodes of UTI (P= 0.0418). There are very few studies reporting the incidence and outcome of UTI in the era of modern immunosuppressant regimen in India. In a recent study from South India of 1022 renal allograft recipients, 16.5% developed acute graft pyelonephritis following renal transplantation. [16] They found placement of ureteric stent, urological malformations of native kidney, Cytomegalovirus disease, MMF based regimen and acute rejection episodes as determinants of acute graft pyelopnephritis. As we sparingly used stents, we did not see significant occurrence of pyelonephritis in our cohort. It has been observed that instrumentation disrupts the glycosaminoglycans from the urothelial surface and facilitates introduction of pathogen into the biofilm on the catheter/stent. The bacterial aggregates may escape the immune system by being walled off into polysaccharide and uroplakin plaques covering the intracellular pods, giving rise to recurrent UTI. [17]
In our experience, urine culture should be carried out at regular intervals especially in the early post transplant period for those at increased risk, females, young age, diabetics due to the use of potent immunosuppressant's and induction agents routinely used. This will help diagnosing the UTI earlier and mange properly thus preventing adverse outcome including acute rejection and graft scarring.
| References | | |
| 1. | Franz M, Horl WH. Common errors in diagnosis and management of urinary tract infection. II: clinical management. Nephrol Dial Transplant 1999;14(11):2754-62.  |
| 2. | Abbud-Filho M, Adams PL, Alberti J, et al. A Report of the Lisbon conference on the care of the kidney transplant recipient. Transplantation 2007;83(8-Suppl):S1-22. |
| 3. | Myerowitz RL, Medeiros AA, O'Brien TF. Bacterial infection in renal homotransplant recipients. A study of fifty-three bacteremic episodes. Am J Med 1972;53(3):308-14. |
| 4. | Meier-Kriesche HU, Ojo AO, Hanson JA, Kaplan B. Exponentially increased risk of infectious death in older renal transplant recipients. Kidney Int 2001;59(4):1539-43. |
| 5. | Maraha B, Bonten H, van Hooff H, Fiolet H, Buiting AG, Stobberingh EE. Infectious complications and antibiotic use in renal transplant recipients during a 1-year follow-up. Clin Microbiol Infect 2001;7(11):619-25. |
| 6. | Anantharaman P, Abraham G, Shekar U, Moorthy A, Shroff S, Soundararajan P. Klebsiella endocarditis in the early post-operative period after renal transplantation. Nephrol Dial Transplant 1998;13(10):2665-6. |
| 7. | Rubin RH, Ikonen T, Gummert JF, Morris RE. The therapeutic prescription for the organ transplant recipient: the linkage of immunosuppression and antimicrobial strategies Transpl Infect Dis 1999;1(1):29-39. |
| 8. | Rubin RH. Infection in the organ transplant recipient. In: Rubin RS, Young LS, eds. Clinical Approach to infection in the Compromised host (4 th edn.). New York: Kluwer Academic / Plenum, 2002:573-679. |
| 9. | Hooton TM, Scholes D, Hughes JP, et al. A prospective study of risk factors for symptomatic urinary tract infection in young women. N Engl J Med 1996;335(7):468-74. |
| 10. | Jaik NP, Sujatha K, Mathew M, et al. Renal abscess. J Assoc Physician India 2006;54:241-3. |
| 11. | Rubin RH, Fang LS, Cosimi AB, et al. Usefulness of the antibody-coated bacteria assay in the management of urinary tract infection in renal transplant patient. Transplantation 1979;27(1): 18-20 |
| 12. | Nebreda-Mayoral T, Mufloz-Bellido JL, GarciaRodrrIguez JA. Incidence and characteristics of urinary tract infections caused by Corynebacterium urealyticum (Corynebacterium group D2). Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis 1994;13 (7):600-4. |
| 13. | Allison AC, Kowalski WJ, Muller CJ, Waters RV, Eugui EM. Mycophenolic acid and brequinar, inhibitors of purine and pyrimidine synthesis, block the glycosylation of adhesion molecules. Transplant Proc 1993;25(3Suppl 2):67-70. |
| 14. | Yamani MH, Avery RK, Mawhorter SD, et al. Hypogammaglobulinemia following cardiac transplantation: a link between rejection and infection. J Heart Lung Transplant 2001;20(4): 425-30. |
| 15. | Keven K, Sahin M, Kutlay S, et al. Immunoglobulin deficiency in kidney allograft recipients: comparative effects of mycophenolate mofetil and azathioprine. Transpl Infect Dis 2003;5(4):181-6. |
| 16. | Kamath NS, John GT, Neelakantan N, Kirubakaran MG, Jacob CK. Acute graft pyelonephritis following renal transplantation. Transpl Infect Dis 2006;8(3):140-7. |
| 17. | de Souza RM, Olsburgh J. Urinary tract Infection in the renal transplant patient. Nature Clin Pract Nephrol 2008;4(5):252-64. |
Correspondence Address:
Georgi Abraham
9/2 15th avenue, Harrington Road, Chetput, Chennai-31
India
 Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None  | Check |
PMID: 20814124 
[Figure 1]
[Table 1] |
|
| This article has been cited by | | 1 |
Urinary tract infection and kidney transplantation: A review of diagnosis, causes, and current clinical approach |
|
| Castañeda, D.A. and León, K. and MartÃn, R. and López, L. and Pérez, H. and Lozano, E. | | Transplantation Proceedings. 2013; 45(4): 1590-1592 | | [Pubmed] | | | 2 |
Survival Outcomes in Renal Transplantation in Trinidad and Tobago - SORTTT Study |
|
| Roberts, L. and Ramsaroop, K. and Seemungal, T. | | West Indian Medical Journal. 2012; 61(4) | | [Pubmed] | | | 3 |
Is early removal of prophylactic ureteric stents beneficial in live donor renal transplantation |
|
| Anil, M. and Appu, T. and George, K. and Georgy, M. and Ginil, K. and Indu, K.N. and Lakshminarayana, G. and Nair, B. and Rajesh, R. and Sudhindran, S. and Unni, V.N. and Sanjeevan, K.V. | | Indian Journal of Nephrology. 2012; 22(4): 275-279 | | [Pubmed] | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Article Access Statistics | | | Viewed | 6239 | | | Printed | 96 | | | Emailed | 0 | | | PDF Downloaded | 804 | | | Comments | [Add] | | | Cited by others | 3 | | |
|
|
