Cargando…

146. Review of Urine Culture Screening Practices Prior to Urologic Procedures

BACKGROUND: Screening for UTIs prior to urologic procedures is a well-established practice. However, screening for asymptomatic bacteriuria remains more controversial, especially for procedures considered to be low-risk for complications. The aim of this study was to characterize current screening p...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Jeong, Anthony J, Dudek, Sessen, Bennett, Jessica G, Thomas-Gosain, Neena
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Oxford University Press 2023
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10677548/
http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/ofid/ofad500.219
_version_ 1785150155883806720
author Jeong, Anthony J
Dudek, Sessen
Bennett, Jessica G
Thomas-Gosain, Neena
author_facet Jeong, Anthony J
Dudek, Sessen
Bennett, Jessica G
Thomas-Gosain, Neena
author_sort Jeong, Anthony J
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Screening for UTIs prior to urologic procedures is a well-established practice. However, screening for asymptomatic bacteriuria remains more controversial, especially for procedures considered to be low-risk for complications. The aim of this study was to characterize current screening practices at our facility. METHODS: This retrospective study reviewed outpatient urologic procedures performed between 10/01/2022 and 12/31/2022. Procedures were stratified by risk based on current American Urological Association guidance. Charts were reviewed for the following information: urinary symptoms, ucx results, antibiotic prescriptions, post-op complications. The primary outcome was the incidence of urinary (GU) infection or infection related hospitalization (IRH) within 30 days post-procedure. Secondary outcomes include ucx screening rates and risk of infection based on presence of urinary symptoms. Results: 210 procedures were reviewed. Risk of GU infection ranged from 8.2% to 12.9%, with the highest rates seen in intermediate- and high-risk procedures. Risk of IRH increased by increasing level of risk (Table 1). Pre-op ucx were ordered in 35% of procedures, however frequency of ordering varied based on level of risk, with intermediate-risk (96%) much more likely to have been screened and no screening was done prior to high-risk procedures (Table 2). Symptomatic patients were more likely to have a pre-op ucx (60.4% vs 28.2% if asymptomatic). Ucx positivity was 3-fold higher if patient was symptomatic. Rates of GU infection and IRH varied based on presence of symptoms and whether preop ucx was ordered. (Table 3) [Figure: see text] [Figure: see text] [Figure: see text] CONCLUSION: In this study sample, risk of infectious complications (especially IRH) increased with increasing level of procedural risk. However, screening trends were inconsistent limiting conclusions about the impact of ucx on the incidence of infectious complications prior to intermediate and high-risk procedures. The rate of ucx screening was higher when urinary symptoms were present, but clear trends did not appear. This study highlights the need for consistent screening practices, primarily based on risk of procedure. Larger numbers may help answer the question of whether or not screening should be based on presence of symptoms. DISCLOSURES: All Authors: No reported disclosures
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-10677548
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2023
publisher Oxford University Press
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-106775482023-11-27 146. Review of Urine Culture Screening Practices Prior to Urologic Procedures Jeong, Anthony J Dudek, Sessen Bennett, Jessica G Thomas-Gosain, Neena Open Forum Infect Dis Abstract BACKGROUND: Screening for UTIs prior to urologic procedures is a well-established practice. However, screening for asymptomatic bacteriuria remains more controversial, especially for procedures considered to be low-risk for complications. The aim of this study was to characterize current screening practices at our facility. METHODS: This retrospective study reviewed outpatient urologic procedures performed between 10/01/2022 and 12/31/2022. Procedures were stratified by risk based on current American Urological Association guidance. Charts were reviewed for the following information: urinary symptoms, ucx results, antibiotic prescriptions, post-op complications. The primary outcome was the incidence of urinary (GU) infection or infection related hospitalization (IRH) within 30 days post-procedure. Secondary outcomes include ucx screening rates and risk of infection based on presence of urinary symptoms. Results: 210 procedures were reviewed. Risk of GU infection ranged from 8.2% to 12.9%, with the highest rates seen in intermediate- and high-risk procedures. Risk of IRH increased by increasing level of risk (Table 1). Pre-op ucx were ordered in 35% of procedures, however frequency of ordering varied based on level of risk, with intermediate-risk (96%) much more likely to have been screened and no screening was done prior to high-risk procedures (Table 2). Symptomatic patients were more likely to have a pre-op ucx (60.4% vs 28.2% if asymptomatic). Ucx positivity was 3-fold higher if patient was symptomatic. Rates of GU infection and IRH varied based on presence of symptoms and whether preop ucx was ordered. (Table 3) [Figure: see text] [Figure: see text] [Figure: see text] CONCLUSION: In this study sample, risk of infectious complications (especially IRH) increased with increasing level of procedural risk. However, screening trends were inconsistent limiting conclusions about the impact of ucx on the incidence of infectious complications prior to intermediate and high-risk procedures. The rate of ucx screening was higher when urinary symptoms were present, but clear trends did not appear. This study highlights the need for consistent screening practices, primarily based on risk of procedure. Larger numbers may help answer the question of whether or not screening should be based on presence of symptoms. DISCLOSURES: All Authors: No reported disclosures Oxford University Press 2023-11-27 /pmc/articles/PMC10677548/ http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/ofid/ofad500.219 Text en © The Author(s) 2023. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of Infectious Diseases Society of America. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted reuse, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Abstract
Jeong, Anthony J
Dudek, Sessen
Bennett, Jessica G
Thomas-Gosain, Neena
146. Review of Urine Culture Screening Practices Prior to Urologic Procedures
title 146. Review of Urine Culture Screening Practices Prior to Urologic Procedures
title_full 146. Review of Urine Culture Screening Practices Prior to Urologic Procedures
title_fullStr 146. Review of Urine Culture Screening Practices Prior to Urologic Procedures
title_full_unstemmed 146. Review of Urine Culture Screening Practices Prior to Urologic Procedures
title_short 146. Review of Urine Culture Screening Practices Prior to Urologic Procedures
title_sort 146. review of urine culture screening practices prior to urologic procedures
topic Abstract
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10677548/
http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/ofid/ofad500.219
work_keys_str_mv AT jeonganthonyj 146reviewofurineculturescreeningpracticespriortourologicprocedures
AT dudeksessen 146reviewofurineculturescreeningpracticespriortourologicprocedures
AT bennettjessicag 146reviewofurineculturescreeningpracticespriortourologicprocedures
AT thomasgosainneena 146reviewofurineculturescreeningpracticespriortourologicprocedures