Safety and effectiveness of zero antimicrobial prophylaxis protocol for outpatient cystourethroscopy

Emily K. Clennon, Ann Martinez Acevedo, Kamran Sajadi

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

Objectives: To examine compliance and clinical outcomes after implementation of a zero antimicrobial prophylaxis protocol for outpatient cystoscopy in an academic centre. Patients and Methods: Medical records of all patients who underwent diagnostic cystoscopy in the year preceding and year following protocol implementation were evaluated for urinary tract infection (UTI) diagnosis within 30 days of cystoscopy. Variables compared between groups included age, sex, smoking history, benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) diagnosis, diabetes mellitus, immunosuppression, catheter use (indwelling, suprapubic, or intermittent), and previous lower urinary tract reconstruction (augmentation cystoplasty or neobladder). UTI was defined using the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program definition. Rates were compared between groups, and statistical analyses were performed using chi-squared and Fisher's exact tests and multivariable logistic regression, with significance defined as α < 0.05. Results: In total, 941 patients were included in the analysis (72% men), 513 before protocol initiation, and 427 after. Groups were similar with regard to demographic variables and potential risk factors for infection. After protocol implementation, there was a significant reduction in patients receiving procedural antimicrobial prophylaxis (30% vs 15%; P < 0.001). The incidence of UTI after cystoscopy was slightly higher in the post-protocol group (2.9–3.7%), but the difference was not statistically significant (chi-squared = 0.56, P = 0.45). The incidence of UTI did not significantly differ with procedural antibiotic prophylaxis or with other antibiotic use at time of cystoscopy. Five out of a total of 31 UTIs (16%) over the study period resulted in fever, and four (13%) resulted in urosepsis. The probability of neither complication differed significantly between pre- and post-protocol groups. The only significant patient-level predictor of post-cystoscopy UTI was catheter use (odds ratio 1.48, 95% confidence interval 1.06–2.06). Conclusion: Protocol implementation led to a significant decrease in procedural antimicrobial prophylaxis, indicating protocols may be effective tools in promoting antibiotic stewardship. UTI incidence did not change significantly under the protocol, and antibiotic prophylaxis did not decrease infection rate. Our results support catheter use as a risk factor for post-cystoscopy infection, but other patient variables, including those present in the American Urological Association Best Practice statement, were not predictive. In total, this analysis suggests that decreasing antibiotic prophylaxis for cystourethroscopy is safe and can be effective in the outpatient setting.

Original languageEnglish (US)
JournalBJU International
DOIs
StateAccepted/In press - Jan 1 2019

Fingerprint

Cystoscopy
Urinary Tract Infections
Outpatients
Safety
Antibiotic Prophylaxis
Incidence
Catheters
Infection
Anti-Bacterial Agents
Indwelling Catheters
Prostatic Hyperplasia
Quality Improvement
Urinary Tract
Practice Guidelines
Immunosuppression
Compliance
Medical Records
Diabetes Mellitus
Fever
Age Groups

Keywords

  • antibiotic
  • cystoscopy
  • cystourethroscopy
  • prophylaxis
  • quality improvement
  • stewardship

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Urology

Cite this

Safety and effectiveness of zero antimicrobial prophylaxis protocol for outpatient cystourethroscopy. / Clennon, Emily K.; Martinez Acevedo, Ann; Sajadi, Kamran.

In: BJU International, 01.01.2019.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{96e4884f1b6142b19eb2875bf09f3bea,
title = "Safety and effectiveness of zero antimicrobial prophylaxis protocol for outpatient cystourethroscopy",
abstract = "Objectives: To examine compliance and clinical outcomes after implementation of a zero antimicrobial prophylaxis protocol for outpatient cystoscopy in an academic centre. Patients and Methods: Medical records of all patients who underwent diagnostic cystoscopy in the year preceding and year following protocol implementation were evaluated for urinary tract infection (UTI) diagnosis within 30 days of cystoscopy. Variables compared between groups included age, sex, smoking history, benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) diagnosis, diabetes mellitus, immunosuppression, catheter use (indwelling, suprapubic, or intermittent), and previous lower urinary tract reconstruction (augmentation cystoplasty or neobladder). UTI was defined using the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program definition. Rates were compared between groups, and statistical analyses were performed using chi-squared and Fisher's exact tests and multivariable logistic regression, with significance defined as α < 0.05. Results: In total, 941 patients were included in the analysis (72{\%} men), 513 before protocol initiation, and 427 after. Groups were similar with regard to demographic variables and potential risk factors for infection. After protocol implementation, there was a significant reduction in patients receiving procedural antimicrobial prophylaxis (30{\%} vs 15{\%}; P < 0.001). The incidence of UTI after cystoscopy was slightly higher in the post-protocol group (2.9–3.7{\%}), but the difference was not statistically significant (chi-squared = 0.56, P = 0.45). The incidence of UTI did not significantly differ with procedural antibiotic prophylaxis or with other antibiotic use at time of cystoscopy. Five out of a total of 31 UTIs (16{\%}) over the study period resulted in fever, and four (13{\%}) resulted in urosepsis. The probability of neither complication differed significantly between pre- and post-protocol groups. The only significant patient-level predictor of post-cystoscopy UTI was catheter use (odds ratio 1.48, 95{\%} confidence interval 1.06–2.06). Conclusion: Protocol implementation led to a significant decrease in procedural antimicrobial prophylaxis, indicating protocols may be effective tools in promoting antibiotic stewardship. UTI incidence did not change significantly under the protocol, and antibiotic prophylaxis did not decrease infection rate. Our results support catheter use as a risk factor for post-cystoscopy infection, but other patient variables, including those present in the American Urological Association Best Practice statement, were not predictive. In total, this analysis suggests that decreasing antibiotic prophylaxis for cystourethroscopy is safe and can be effective in the outpatient setting.",
keywords = "antibiotic, cystoscopy, cystourethroscopy, prophylaxis, quality improvement, stewardship",
author = "Clennon, {Emily K.} and {Martinez Acevedo}, Ann and Kamran Sajadi",
year = "2019",
month = "1",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1111/bju.14662",
language = "English (US)",
journal = "BJU International",
issn = "1464-4096",
publisher = "Wiley-Blackwell",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Safety and effectiveness of zero antimicrobial prophylaxis protocol for outpatient cystourethroscopy

AU - Clennon, Emily K.

AU - Martinez Acevedo, Ann

AU - Sajadi, Kamran

PY - 2019/1/1

Y1 - 2019/1/1

N2 - Objectives: To examine compliance and clinical outcomes after implementation of a zero antimicrobial prophylaxis protocol for outpatient cystoscopy in an academic centre. Patients and Methods: Medical records of all patients who underwent diagnostic cystoscopy in the year preceding and year following protocol implementation were evaluated for urinary tract infection (UTI) diagnosis within 30 days of cystoscopy. Variables compared between groups included age, sex, smoking history, benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) diagnosis, diabetes mellitus, immunosuppression, catheter use (indwelling, suprapubic, or intermittent), and previous lower urinary tract reconstruction (augmentation cystoplasty or neobladder). UTI was defined using the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program definition. Rates were compared between groups, and statistical analyses were performed using chi-squared and Fisher's exact tests and multivariable logistic regression, with significance defined as α < 0.05. Results: In total, 941 patients were included in the analysis (72% men), 513 before protocol initiation, and 427 after. Groups were similar with regard to demographic variables and potential risk factors for infection. After protocol implementation, there was a significant reduction in patients receiving procedural antimicrobial prophylaxis (30% vs 15%; P < 0.001). The incidence of UTI after cystoscopy was slightly higher in the post-protocol group (2.9–3.7%), but the difference was not statistically significant (chi-squared = 0.56, P = 0.45). The incidence of UTI did not significantly differ with procedural antibiotic prophylaxis or with other antibiotic use at time of cystoscopy. Five out of a total of 31 UTIs (16%) over the study period resulted in fever, and four (13%) resulted in urosepsis. The probability of neither complication differed significantly between pre- and post-protocol groups. The only significant patient-level predictor of post-cystoscopy UTI was catheter use (odds ratio 1.48, 95% confidence interval 1.06–2.06). Conclusion: Protocol implementation led to a significant decrease in procedural antimicrobial prophylaxis, indicating protocols may be effective tools in promoting antibiotic stewardship. UTI incidence did not change significantly under the protocol, and antibiotic prophylaxis did not decrease infection rate. Our results support catheter use as a risk factor for post-cystoscopy infection, but other patient variables, including those present in the American Urological Association Best Practice statement, were not predictive. In total, this analysis suggests that decreasing antibiotic prophylaxis for cystourethroscopy is safe and can be effective in the outpatient setting.

AB - Objectives: To examine compliance and clinical outcomes after implementation of a zero antimicrobial prophylaxis protocol for outpatient cystoscopy in an academic centre. Patients and Methods: Medical records of all patients who underwent diagnostic cystoscopy in the year preceding and year following protocol implementation were evaluated for urinary tract infection (UTI) diagnosis within 30 days of cystoscopy. Variables compared between groups included age, sex, smoking history, benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) diagnosis, diabetes mellitus, immunosuppression, catheter use (indwelling, suprapubic, or intermittent), and previous lower urinary tract reconstruction (augmentation cystoplasty or neobladder). UTI was defined using the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program definition. Rates were compared between groups, and statistical analyses were performed using chi-squared and Fisher's exact tests and multivariable logistic regression, with significance defined as α < 0.05. Results: In total, 941 patients were included in the analysis (72% men), 513 before protocol initiation, and 427 after. Groups were similar with regard to demographic variables and potential risk factors for infection. After protocol implementation, there was a significant reduction in patients receiving procedural antimicrobial prophylaxis (30% vs 15%; P < 0.001). The incidence of UTI after cystoscopy was slightly higher in the post-protocol group (2.9–3.7%), but the difference was not statistically significant (chi-squared = 0.56, P = 0.45). The incidence of UTI did not significantly differ with procedural antibiotic prophylaxis or with other antibiotic use at time of cystoscopy. Five out of a total of 31 UTIs (16%) over the study period resulted in fever, and four (13%) resulted in urosepsis. The probability of neither complication differed significantly between pre- and post-protocol groups. The only significant patient-level predictor of post-cystoscopy UTI was catheter use (odds ratio 1.48, 95% confidence interval 1.06–2.06). Conclusion: Protocol implementation led to a significant decrease in procedural antimicrobial prophylaxis, indicating protocols may be effective tools in promoting antibiotic stewardship. UTI incidence did not change significantly under the protocol, and antibiotic prophylaxis did not decrease infection rate. Our results support catheter use as a risk factor for post-cystoscopy infection, but other patient variables, including those present in the American Urological Association Best Practice statement, were not predictive. In total, this analysis suggests that decreasing antibiotic prophylaxis for cystourethroscopy is safe and can be effective in the outpatient setting.

KW - antibiotic

KW - cystoscopy

KW - cystourethroscopy

KW - prophylaxis

KW - quality improvement

KW - stewardship

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85060333576&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85060333576&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1111/bju.14662

DO - 10.1111/bju.14662

M3 - Article

C2 - 30578737

AN - SCOPUS:85060333576

JO - BJU International

JF - BJU International

SN - 1464-4096

ER -