The journal of spinal cord medicine · 2024
Antibiotic prophylaxis with urodynamic studies in spinal cord injury: Assessing practice patterns and outcomes to guide future practice in a single center.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Pham Du, Chi Bradley, Skelton Felicia, Huang Donna
Аннотация
CONTEXT/OBJECTIVE: Despite urinary tract infections (UTIs) being a common problem in patients with spinal cord injuries (SCIs), and a well-known complication of invasive urologic procedures, little consensus exists regarding the standard of care for peri-procedural antibiotic use for SCI patients undergoing urodynamics studies (UDS). Our research seeks to evaluate local antibiotic prophylaxis pattern in SCI patients undergoing UDS, assess incidence of post-procedural UTI, describe local antibiotic resistance trends, and provide antibiotic stewardship considerations to guide future practice.
DESIGN/SETTING/PARTICIPANTS: Retrospective cohort study of SCI patients undergoing UDS from January 2010 to January 2020 at a Veterans Affairs SCI Center. Data on patient demographics, UTI risk factors, pre-procedural urinalysis and culture, and peri-procedural antibiotics was extracted. Incidence of post-procedural UTI was tabulated. Findings were summarized using descriptive statistics.
RESULTS: 331 patients were studied. Pre-procedural urine culture was done in 73% of cases, with positive results in 49%. E. coli was the most commonly isolated organism (19%). Antibiotics were used in 86% of cases, 26% of which had a negative culture. A onetime dose of intramuscular gentamicin given immediately pre-procedure was the most common practice (53%; N = 152). No cases of post-procedural UTIs were identified during the study period.
CONCLUSION: No post-UDS UTIs occurred under current local practice where most patients received a one-time dose of intramuscular gentamicin as prophylaxis. Though routine gentamicin prophylaxis may play a role in reducing UTI incidence, the low rate of post-UDS UTI in this population, including patients with positive cultures who received no antibiotics, suggests the possibility of refining practice patterns to improve antibiotic stewardship.
DESIGN/SETTING/PARTICIPANTS: Retrospective cohort study of SCI patients undergoing UDS from January 2010 to January 2020 at a Veterans Affairs SCI Center. Data on patient demographics, UTI risk factors, pre-procedural urinalysis and culture, and peri-procedural antibiotics was extracted. Incidence of post-procedural UTI was tabulated. Findings were summarized using descriptive statistics.
RESULTS: 331 patients were studied. Pre-procedural urine culture was done in 73% of cases, with positive results in 49%. E. coli was the most commonly isolated organism (19%). Antibiotics were used in 86% of cases, 26% of which had a negative culture. A onetime dose of intramuscular gentamicin given immediately pre-procedure was the most common practice (53%; N = 152). No cases of post-procedural UTIs were identified during the study period.
CONCLUSION: No post-UDS UTIs occurred under current local practice where most patients received a one-time dose of intramuscular gentamicin as prophylaxis. Though routine gentamicin prophylaxis may play a role in reducing UTI incidence, the low rate of post-UDS UTI in this population, including patients with positive cultures who received no antibiotics, suggests the possibility of refining practice patterns to improve antibiotic stewardship.