Antibiotic prophylaxis for urinary tract infections in renal transplant recipients: A systematic review and meta-analysis

H. Green*, R. Rahamimov, U. Gafter, L. Leibovitci, M. Paul

*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journalReview articlepeer-review


Urinary tract infection (UTI) is the most common bacterial infection in renal transplant recipients. To date there are no guidelines on antibiotic prophylaxis for UTI in this population. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials comparing antibiotic prophylaxis vs. placebo, no intervention, or different antibiotics, all beginning postoperatively and continued for at least 1 month during the first 6 months post transplantation. The search included CENTRAL, PubMed, LILACS, and relevant conference abstracts up to August 2009. The primary outcome was graft loss. Six trials were included in this review, including 545 patients. No significant difference was seen in graft loss (risk ratio [RR] 0.99, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.91-1.81). Prophylaxis lowered the risk for developing sepsis with bacteremia by 87% (RR 0.13, 95% CI 0.02-0.7) and the risk for developing bacteriuria (symptomatic or asymptomatic) by 60% (RR 0.41, 95% CI 0.31-0.56; 3 trials). Symptomatic UTI and pyelonephritis were not reported. No significant reduction was found in all-cause mortality and adverse events rates; conflicting results were reported for the development of resistant bacteria. Very few trials assessed the efficacy of prophylaxis for UTI following renal transplantation. Prophylaxis reduced bacteriuria and sepsis with bacteremia; effects on graft survival could not be demonstrated.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)441-447
Number of pages7
JournalTransplant Infectious Disease
Issue number5
StatePublished - Oct 2011


  • Prophylaxis
  • Renal transplantation
  • Urinary tract infection


Dive into the research topics of 'Antibiotic prophylaxis for urinary tract infections in renal transplant recipients: A systematic review and meta-analysis'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this