Prophylactic antibiotics to reduce the risk of urinary tract infections after urodynamic studies

(A)voiding misdiagnosis: prediction of detrusor underactivity vs. bladder outlet obstruction using pre-urodynamic nomogram in male patients with LUTS

PURPOSE

Our study aimed to develop a noninvasive model using a combination of the set of clinical data and uroflowmetry (UFL) to differentiate between detrusor underactivity (DU) and bladder outlet obstruction (BOO) in non-neurogenic male patients with lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS).

METHODS

Data from 229 men with LUTS, diagnosed with DU or BOO on a pressure-flow study (PFS), were retrospectively analyzed, including medical history, Core Lower Urinary Tract Symptoms score (CLSS) questionnaire, UFL and PFS. Uni- and multivariate logistic regression were utilized for the prediction analyses.

RESULTS

Of the cohort, 128 (55.9%) patients were diagnosed with DU. A multivariate logistic regression analysis identified less prevalent nocturia (OR 0.27, p < 0.002), more prevalent intermittency (OR 2.33, p = 0.03), less prevalent weak stream (OR 0.14, p = 0.0004), lower straining points in CLSS (OR 0.67, p = 0.02), higher slow stream points in CLSS (OR 1.81, p = 0.002), higher incomplete emptying points in CLSS (OR 1.31, p < 0.02), lower PVR ratio (OR 0.20, p = 0.03), and present features of fluctuating (OR 2.00, p = 0.05), fluctuating-intermittent (OR 3.09, p < 0.006), and intermittent (OR 8.11, p = 0.076) UFL curve shapes as independent predictors of DU. The above prediction model demonstrated satisfactory accuracy (c-index of 0.783).

CONCLUSION

Our 10-factor model provides a noninvasive approach to differentiate DU from BOO in male patients with non-neurogenic LUTS, offering a valuable alternative to invasive PFS.

Urinary Tract Infections in Patients Undergoing Invasive Urodynamic Study: A Prospective Observational Study at a Tertiary Care Centre in Eastern India

OBJECTIVE

The aim of the study was to find the estimate of the prevalence of urinary tract infections following invasive urodynamic studies (UDS) in a hospital setup and to identify the risk factors related to it.

METHOD

A total of 100 patients were enrolled in this prospective observational study after standard preoperative work, which included both urine analysis and culture procedure. The study was carried out from April 2022 to April 2023 at the Department of Urology, Indira Gandhi Institute of Medical Sciences, India. Three days following the UDS test, all the patients underwent repeat urine analysis and culture, besides screening for any lower urinary tract symptoms, abdominal pain, and fever.

RESULT

Among all, 14 patients (i.e., 6.1% of 85 individuals) had significant bacteriuria, and six patients (4.7%) developed symptoms of UTI. However, a strong association was observed between the maximal detrusor pressure during voiding (Pdet at Q max) and post-void residue (PVR), which were >20 mL before UDS, along with positive urine cultures after UDS, which was significant at <0.05.

CONCLUSION

The study demonstrated that the risk of UTIs with this diagnostic technique is minimal and that prophylactic antibiotic medication is not necessary prior to UDS in all patients.

Use of Prophylactic Antibiotics to Prevent Urinary Tract Infection After Urodynamic Testing and Cystoscopy in Women: A Practice Pattern Study

OBJECTIVES

To determine practice patterns of prescribing prophylactic antibiotics against urinary tract infection (UTI) for urodynamic studies (UDS) and outpatient cystoscopy in women.

DESIGN

A cross-sectional survey study was conducted of North American female pelvic medicine and reconstructive specialists (FPMRS).

METHODS

An online survey was used to assess prophylactic prescribing patterns of FPMRS specialists that perform UDS and outpatient cystoscopy. This survey was developed and then electronically disseminated through the American Urogynecologic Society to 699 eligible physicians.

RESULTS

A total of 138 surveys were completed. Approximately half of physicians did not prescribe any antibiotic prophylaxis for UDS or for cystoscopy (54% and 43%, respectively). For patients with perceived risk factors (recurrent urinary tract infections, immunosuppression, known neurogenic lower urinary tract dysfunction, indwelling catheter use, elevated post void residual/bladder outlet obstruction, genitourinary anomalies, and diabetes), 32% and 41% of physicians prescribed antibiotic prophylaxis for UDS and cystoscopy, respectively. A minority of physicians always prescribed antibiotics for UDS and cystoscopy (13% and 17%, respectively).

LIMITATIONS

The response rate was a limitation of the study, however, this rate is in keeping with other physician survey studies published within this subspecialty. Selection and response biases may have contributed to the results of this survey study.

CONCLUSION

There was no uniform approach to urinary tract infection prophylaxis for UDS and outpatient cystoscopy in women which reflects the lack of current guidelines and the low level of evidence on which they are based. This non-uniform practice calls for more research to better define an evidence-based standard of care.

Strategies for the removal of short-term indwelling urethral catheters in adults

BACKGROUND

Urinary catheterisation is a common procedure, with approximately 15% to 25% of all people admitted to hospital receiving short-term (14 days or less) indwelling urethral catheterisation at some point during their care. However, the use of urinary catheters is associated with an increased risk of developing urinary tract infection. Catheter-associated urinary tract infection (CAUTI) is one of the most common hospital-acquired infections. It is estimated that around 20% of hospital-acquired bacteraemias arise from the urinary tract and are associated with mortality of around 10%. This is an update of a Cochrane Review first published in 2005 and last published in 2007.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of strategies for removing short-term (14 days or less) indwelling catheters in adults.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Incontinence Specialised Register, which contains trials identified from CENTRAL, MEDLINE, MEDLINE In-Process, MEDLINE Epub Ahead of Print, CINAHL, ClinicalTrials.gov, WHO ICTRP, and handsearching of journals and conference proceedings (searched 17 March 2020), and reference lists of relevant articles.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs that evaluated the effectiveness of practices undertaken for the removal of short-term indwelling urethral catheters in adults for any reason in any setting.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors performed abstract and full-text screening of all relevant articles. At least two review authors independently performed risk of bias assessment, data abstraction and GRADE assessment.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 99 trials involving 12,241 participants. We judged the majority of trials to be at low or unclear risk of selection and detection bias, with a high risk of performance bias. We also deemed most trials to be at low risk of attrition and reporting bias. None of the trials reported on quality of life. The majority of participants across the trials had undergone some form of surgical procedure. Thirteen trials involving 1506 participants compared the removal of short-term indwelling urethral catheters at one time of day (early morning removal group between 6 am to 7 am) versus another (late night removal group between 10 pm to midnight). Catheter removal late at night may slightly reduce the risk of requiring recatheterisation compared with early morning (RR 0.71, 95% CI 0.53 to 0.96; 10 RCTs, 1920 participants; low-certainty evidence). We are uncertain if there is any difference between early morning and late night removal in the risk of developing symptomatic CAUTI (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.61 to 1.63; 1 RCT, 41 participants; very low-certainty evidence). We are uncertain whether the time of day makes a difference to the risk of dysuria (RR 2.20; 95% CI 0.70 to 6.86; 1 RCT, 170 participants; low-certainty evidence). Sixty-eight trials involving 9247 participants compared shorter versus longer durations of catheterisation. Shorter durations may increase the risk of requiring recatheterisation compared with longer durations (RR 1.81, 95% CI 1.35 to 2.41; 44 trials, 5870 participants; low-certainty evidence), but probably reduce the risk of symptomatic CAUTI (RR 0.52, 95% CI 0.45 to 0.61; 41 RCTs, 5759 participants; moderate-certainty evidence) and may reduce the risk of dysuria (RR 0.42, 95% CI 0.20 to 0.88; 7 RCTs; 1398 participants; low-certainty evidence). Seven trials involving 714 participants compared policies of clamping catheters versus free drainage. There may be little to no difference between clamping and free drainage in terms of the risk of requiring recatheterisation (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.55 to 1.21; 5 RCTs; 569 participants; low-certainty evidence). We are uncertain if there is any difference in the risk of symptomatic CAUTI (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.60 to 1.63; 2 RCTs, 267 participants; very low-certainty evidence) or dysuria (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.46 to 1.54; 1 trial, 79 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Three trials involving 402 participants compared the use of prophylactic alpha blockers versus no intervention or placebo. We are uncertain if prophylactic alpha blockers before catheter removal has any effect on the risk of requiring recatheterisation (RR 1.18, 95% CI 0.58 to 2.42; 2 RCTs, 184 participants; very low-certainty evidence) or risk of symptomatic CAUTI (RR 0.20, 95% CI 0.01 to 4.06; 1 trial, 94 participants; very low-certainty evidence). None of the included trials investigating prophylactic alpha blockers reported the number of participants with dysuria.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is some evidence to suggest the removal of indwelling urethral catheters late at night rather than early in the morning may reduce the number of people who require recatheterisation. It appears that catheter removal after shorter compared to longer durations probably reduces the risk of symptomatic CAUTI and may reduce the risk of dysuria. However, it may lead to more people requiring recatheterisation. The other evidence relating to the risk of symptomatic CAUTI and dysuria is too uncertain to allow us to draw any conclusions. Due to the low certainty of the majority of the evidence presented here, the results of further research are likely to change our findings and to have a further impact on clinical practice. This systematic review has highlighted the need for a standardised set of core outcomes, which should be measured and reported by all future trials comparing strategies for the removal of short-term urinary catheters. Future trials should also study the effects of short-term indwelling urethral catheter removal on non-surgical patients.

Prophylactic Antibiotics for Urinary Tract Infections after Urodynamic Studies: A Meta-Analysis

Aim

We aimed to perform a meta-analysis to determine whether antibiotic prophylaxis reduces the incidence of urinary tract infections (UTIs) after urodynamic studies (UDS).

Methods

We conducted a systematic search of PubMed, Web of Science, Ovid, Elsevier, ClinicalKey, Embase, Cochrane Library, Medline, and Wiley Online Library. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the effectiveness of prophylactic antibiotics with placebo or no treatment in preventing UTI after UDS were included. Two reviewers extracted data independently, and RevMan 5.3 software was used to analyze relative risk (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). Heterogeneity was assessed by the Q test and I² test.

Results

The final meta-analysis included 1829 patients in 13 RCTs. Compared with the placebo or no treatment group, prophylactic antibiotics could significantly reduce the risk of bacteriuria (RR = 0.42, 95% CI: 0.30-0.60) and the risk of symptomatic UTI (RR = 0.65, 95% CI: 0.48-0.88). In addition, there was no statistically significant difference in the risk of adverse events (RR = 4.93, 95% CI: 0.61-40.05). No significant heterogeneity or publication bias was found in this study.

Conclusions

Current evidence showed that prophylactic antibiotics could reduce the risk of asymptomatic bacteriuria and symptomatic UTI after UDS without increasing the incidence of adverse events.

[Antibiotic prophylaxis for endourological interventions considering antibiotic stewardship]

Perioperative antibiotic prophylaxis in endourology is used to reduce or avoid postoperative surgical site infections and complicated urinary tract infections. Special attention is paid to antibiotic stewardship strategies to avoid the continuing selection of antibiotics and multidrug-resistant uropathogens as well as collateral damage to the microbiome. The individual risk profile, the local resistance situation, the expected pathogen spectrum, the pharmacokinetics and the approval of each substance are important aspects to be considered in the indications and selection of perioperative antibiotic prophylaxis. Furthermore, applicable hygiene regulations and the surgical care of an intervention must be observed.

A Randomized Clinical Trial to Evaluate the Effect of Canephron N in Comparison to Ciprofloxacin in the Prevention of Postoperative Lower Urinary Tract Infections after Midurethral Sling Surgery

Urinary tract infections (UTIs) are one of the most common reasons for antibiotic prescriptions among women worldwide. UTIs are also associated with intra- and postoperative catheterization, which is an essential component of many gynecological surgical procedures, including midurethral sling (MUS) placement. The aim of this study was to compare the incidence of UTI subsequent to a MUS procedure. The study involved 562 female patients who underwent MUS procedures due to stress urinary incontinence (SUI). Patients were assigned in a 1:1 ratio to two study groups: patients receiving 500 mg of ciprofloxacin three times a day for 3 consecutive days after surgery or patients receiving 5 mL of Canephron taken orally three times a day for 3 weeks. After analyzing the collected data, it was found that in the group of patients receiving ciprofloxacin, 29 women (10.98%) had a UTI, whereas in the group of patients receiving Canephron, 36 women (13.64%) had a UTI within 6 months after the patient’s MUS procedure. No statistically significant difference between the two groups was noted. Postoperative prophylaxis with a phytodrug can be perceived as an attractive option in the reduction of antibiotic consumption among female patients after a MUS procedure.

Antibiotic prophylaxis for urodynamic testing in women: a systematic review

Introduction and hypothesis

Urinary tract infection is the most common complication after urodynamic studies (UDS). Practice guidelines recommend against antibiotic prophylaxis based on an outdated review of the literature, which advised on the premise of “a lack of good quality studies” and based on an assumed low incidence not consistently supported by the literature.

Objectives

This systematic review aims to update the assessment of the efficacy of antibiotic prophylaxis compared with placebo or no treatment for prevention of urinary tract infection in females over the age of 18 years undergoing UDS.

Methods

MEDLINE, EMBASE, COCHRANE, DISSERTATIONS, conference proceedings and clinical trial registries were searched for relevant randomized controlled trials. Two authors independently screened and selected articles, assessed these for quality according to Cochrane guidelines and extracted their data.

Results

A total of 2633 records were screened, identifying three relevant randomized controlled trials. The one study that was critically appraised as being the least likely biased showed a statistically significant effect of antibiotic prophylaxis in reducing bacteriuria post UDS in female patients. The other two studies included in the review did not. None of the studies included were powered to show a significant change in the incidence of urinary tract infection following UDS in female patients receiving antibiotic prophylaxis versus no prophylaxis.

Conclusions

Similar to the 2012 Cochrane review on this subject, this systematic review demonstrated that antibiotic prophylaxis may decrease bacteriuria in women post UDS; however, further research is required to assess its effect on urinary tract infections in this context.

PRImary care Management of lower Urinary tract Symptoms in men: protocol for development and validation of a diagnostic and clinical decision support tool (the PriMUS study)

INTRODUCTION

Lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) is a bothersome condition affecting older men which can lead to poor quality of life. General practitioners (GPs) currently have no easily available assessment tools to help effectively diagnose causes of LUTS and aid discussion of treatment with patients. Men are frequently referred to urology specialists who often recommend treatments that could have been initiated in primary care. GP access to simple, accurate tests and clinician decision tools are needed to facilitate accurate and effective patient management of LUTS in primary care.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

PRImary care Management of lower Urinary tract Symptoms (PriMUS) is a prospective diagnostic accuracy study based in primary care. The study will determine which of a number of index tests used in combination best predict three urodynamic observations in men who present to their GP with LUTS. These are detrusor overactivity, bladder outlet obstruction and/or detrusor underactivity. Two cohorts of participants, one for development of the prototype diagnostic tool and other for validation, will undergo a series of simple index tests and the invasive reference standard (invasive urodynamics). We will develop and validate three diagnostic prediction models based on each condition and then combine them with management recommendations to form a clinical decision support tool.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

Ethics approval is from the Wales Research Ethics Committee 6. Findings will be disseminated through peer-reviewed journals and conferences, and results will be of interest to professional and patient stakeholders.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

ISRCTN10327305.

Antimicrobial agents for preventing urinary tract infections in adults undergoing cystoscopy

BACKGROUND

Cystoscopy is commonly performed for diagnostic purposes to inspect the interior lining of the bladder. One disadvantage of cystoscopy is the risk of symptomatic urinary tract infection (UTI) due to pre-existing colonization or by introduction of bacteria at the time of the procedure. However, the incidence of symptomatic UTI following cystoscopy is low. Currently, there is no consensus on whether antimicrobial agents should be used to prevent symptomatic UTI for cystoscopy.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of antimicrobial agents compared with placebo or no treatment for prevention of UTI in adults undergoing cystoscopy.

SEARCH METHODS

We comprehensively searched electronic databases of the Cochrane Library, PubMed, Embase, LILACS, and CINAHL. We searched the WHO ICTRP and ClinicalTrials.gov for ongoing trials. We used no language or date restrictions in the electronic searches. We searched the reference lists of identified articles and contacted authors for related information. The last search of the electronic databases was 4 February 2019.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) or quasi-RCTs that compared any prophylactic antibiotic versus placebo, no treatment, or other non-antibiotic prophylaxis in adults undergoing cystoscopy. There was no restriction on the dose, frequency, formulation, duration, or mode of administration of the antibiotics.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. Our primary outcomes were systemic UTI, symptomatic UTI (composite of systemic and/or localized UTI), and serious adverse events. Secondary outcomes were minor adverse events, localized UTI, asymptomatic bacteriuria, and bacterial resistance. We assessed the quality of evidence using GRADE.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 20 RCTs and two quasi-RCTs with 7711 participants, all of which compared antibiotic prophylaxis with placebo or no treatment control. We found no studies comparing antibiotic prophylaxis with non-antibiotic prophylaxis.Primary outcomesSystemic UTI: antibiotic prophylaxis may have little or no effect on the risk of systemic UTI compared with placebo or no treatment (risk ratio (RR) 1.12, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.38 to 3.32; 5 RCTs; 504 participants; low-quality evidence); this corresponds to two more people (95% CI 12 fewer to 46 more) per 1000 people developing a systemic UTI. We downgraded the quality of the evidence for study limitations and imprecision.Symptomatic UTI: antibiotic prophylaxis may reduce the risk of symptomatic UTI (RR 0.49, 95% CI 0.28 to 0.86; 11 RCTs; 5441 participants; low-quality evidence); this corresponds to 30 fewer people (95% CI 42 fewer to 8 fewer) per 1000 people developing a symptomatic UTI when provided with antibiotic prophylaxis. We downgraded the quality of the evidence for study limitations and potential publication bias.Serious adverse events: the studies reported no serious adverse events in either the intervention group or control group and no effect size could be calculated. Antibiotic prophylaxis may have little or no effect on serious adverse events (4 RCTs, 630 participants; very low-quality evidence), but we are very uncertain of this finding. We downgraded the quality of the evidence for study limitations and very serious imprecision.Secondary outcomesMinor adverse events: prophylactic antibiotics may have little or no effect on minor adverse events when compared with placebo or no treatment (RR 2.82, 95% CI 0.54 to 14.80; 4 RCTs; 630 participants; low-quality evidence). We downgraded the quality of the evidence for study limitations and imprecision.Localized UTI: prophylactic antibiotics may have little or no effect on the risk of localized UTI (RR 1.0, 95% CI 0.06 to 15.77; 1 RCT; 200 participants; very low-quality evidence), but we were very uncertain of this finding. We downgraded the quality of the evidence for study limitations and very serious imprecision.Bacterial resistance: prophylactic antibiotics may increase bacterial resistance (RR 1.73, 95% CI 1.04 to 2.87; 38 participants; 2 RCTs; very low-quality evidence), but we were uncertain of this finding. We downgraded the quality of the evidence for study limitations, indirectness, and imprecision.We were able to perform few secondary analyses; these did not suggest any subgroup effects.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Antibiotic prophylaxis may reduce the risk of symptomatic UTI but not systemic UTIs. Serious and minor adverse events may not be increased with the use of antibiotic prophylaxis. The findings are informed by low- and very low-quality evidence ratings for all outcomes.

Should We Always Use Antibiotics after Urodynamic Studies in High-Risk Patients?

Aim

The aim of this observational study was to evaluate the effectiveness of a phytotherapic drug (Canephron N) in preventing urinary tract infection (UTI) in high-risk women undergoing urodynamic studies (UDS).

Methods

The study protocol was approved by the local institutional ethical committee. Adult women with at least one risk factor for acquiring UTI (defined as: age over 70, elevated postvoid residual urine>100 ml, recurrent UTI, pelvic organ prolapse (POP) ≥II in POP-Q scale, and neurogenic bladder) had received after UDS either a single oral dose of fosfomycin trometamol (FT) (3 grams) or a phytodrug containing centaury herb, lovage root, and rosemary leaves (5 ml taken orally three times daily for one week). All patients included in the study had no pyuria according to urine dipstick (nitrite and/or blood and/or leukocyte esterase) and negative urine culture (CFU < 10³/ml) before UDS. Urine samples were also tested 7 days after UDS.

Results

Seventy-two high-risk participants completed the study. Seven days after urodynamic studies UTI symptoms, pyuria (nitrite and/or blood and/or leukocyte esterase) and bacteriuria with E. coli occurred in two patients (one (2.8%) in the FT and one (2.7%) in the phytodrug group, respectively). No statistical differences in UTI incidence were found between both treatment groups. We did not observe any additional adverse events in both groups. The major disadvantage of prophylaxis with the phytodrug as compared to FT was the necessity of continuing therapy for 7 days.

Conclusion

Prophylaxis of UTI with a phytodrug (Canephron N) may be considered a good alternative to antibiotic prophylaxis use after UDS in high-risk female patients.

Recommendations for urological follow-up of patients with neurogenic bladder secondary to spinal cord injury

PURPOSE

To review currently available guidelines and recommendations regarding urological follow-up of patients after spinal cord injury (SCI) and present an evidence-based summary to support clinicians in their clinical practice.

METHODS

Maximum data were collected according to different methods, including searches with multiple and specific keywords, reference checks, gray literature searches (congress reports, working papers, statement documents), and browsing-related Web site access. Obtained data were analyzed with the modified version of the Oxford grading system for recommendations using levels of evidence (LE) and grades of recommendation (GR).

RESULTS

Different surveillance strategies exist, but there is no consensus among authors and organizations. As a result, practice patterns vary around the world. The present review indicates that proper urological follow-up of SCI patients should consist of medical history (LE 1-4, GR B-C), clinical examination (LE 4, GR C), renal laboratory tests (LE 1-3, GR B), imaging surveillance of the upper urinary tract (LE 1-3, GR A-B), urodynamic study (LE 2-4, GR B-C), and cystoscopy/cytology (LE 1-4, GR D). Clinicians agree that SCI patients should be followed up regularly with an individually tailored approach. A 1-year follow-up schedule seems reasonable in SCI patients without additional risk factors of renal deterioration (LE 3-4, GR C). In those who manifest risk factors, report changes in bladder behavior, or present with already developed complications of neurogenic bladder dysfunction, follow-up plans should be modified with more frequent checkups (LE 4, GR C). Urodynamic study should be repeated and considered as a routine monitoring strategy.

CONCLUSION

Individuals with neurogenic lower urinary tract dysfunction are at increased risk of multiple complications. Nevertheless, proper follow-up after SCI improves the prognosis for these patients and their quality of life.

Urinary tract infection after retrograde urethrogram in children: A multicenter study

INTRODUCTION

The risk of post-procedural urinary tract infection (ppUTI) after retrograde urethrogram (RUG) has not been well quantified. Prophylactic antibiotics may reduce the risk, but must be weighed against the risks of antibiotic resistance. Prior research has shown that this risk is variable after voiding cystourethrogram (0-42% reported ppUTI rate) and appears to be low after urodynamics (0-4.8%) but this risk has not been well documented for patients undergoing RUG.

OBJECTIVE

We aimed to (1) describe the rate of ppUTI after RUG, and (2) examine factors associated with use of antibiotics at the time of RUG.

STUDY DESIGN

We conducted a retrospective cohort study of children undergoing RUG at two hospitals January 1, 2004, to December 31, 2014. ppUTI within 7 days was measured. Antibiotic prophylaxis was determined. Relationships between clinical characteristics and receipt of pre-procedure antibiotics were evaluated using univariate statistics.

RESULTS

Forty-two patients (100% male, median age 11.7 years) underwent 47 RUGs. Indications included trauma (27%), hypospadias (17%), and non-hypospadias (27%) stricture. Study indication and antibiotic administration practices are illustrated in the Figure. Three patients (6.4%) had a history of posterior urethral valves (PUV); one had neurogenic bladder (NGB) (2.4%). Two (4%) studies were performed within 30 days of a clinical UTI and 11% had a positive urinalysis or culture within 30 days pre-RUG. UTI in the 30 days before RUG was not associated with antibiotic prescription (p > 0.99). One child (2.1%; 95% CI 0-6.3%) had a ppUTI: a 7-year-old, uncircumcised male with a history of PUV and voiding dysfunction who was asymptomatic at the time of RUG.

DISCUSSION

Although the risk of ppUTI after RUG appears to be low, the rare occurrence of an iatrogenic UTI can lead to high cost and patient morbidity, particularly in cases similar to our patients who required inpatient admission for intravenous antibiotics. To help balance the risk of UTI with the associated healthcare costs and morbidity with the concerns about antibiotic overuse and potential exposure to drug reaction, data from this study may inform future development of evidence-based guidelines targeting only patients at highest risk for ppUTI with antibiotic prophylaxis.

CONCLUSIONS

The risk of ppUTI after RUG is low. Antibiotic prophylaxis was unrelated pre-RUG UTI in our population. These results indicate the need for pre-procedural antibiotic prescribing guidelines, and suggest that routine antibiotics prior to RUG are not indicated unless the patient has another indication for antibiotics.

Prophylactic antibiotic use in pediatric patients undergoing urinary tract catheterization: a survey of members of the Society for Pediatric Urology

Background

Current organizational guidelines regarding use of antibiotics during urinary tract catheterization are based on limited evidence and are not directly applicable to the pediatric urology population. We seek to improve understanding of this population by first evaluating current practices. This study aims to investigate practice patterns and attitudes of pediatric urologists regarding the use of antibiotics in the setting of urinary tract catheterization.

Methods

An online survey was sent to members of the Society for Pediatric Urology. Questionnaire sections included demographics, general questions about antibiotic use with catheterization, and specific clinical scenarios. Descriptive statistics were used, and chi-square analysis was performed to examine associations between demographics and specific responses.

Results

Of 448 pediatric urologists surveyed, 154 (34%) responded to the survey. A majority of surveyed urologists (78%) prescribe daily prophylactic antibiotics with a hypospadias stent in place, but extensive variation in use of antibiotics was reported with other catheters and tubes. Extensive variation in practice patterns was also reported for three case scenarios regarding antibiotic prophylaxis with catheterization. Urologists > 50 years of age and fellowship-trained urologists were more likely to prescribe antibiotics for hypospadias stents (p = 0.02, p = 0.03), but no other significant associations between demographic characteristics and antibiotic use were found.

Conclusions

There is substantial variation in practice patterns among surveyed pediatric urologists regarding prophylactic antibiotic use with urinary catheterization. This variation, combined with a lack of objective data and increasing pressure to decrease infectious complications and combat antibiotic resistance, highlights the need for development of management guidelines for this unique population.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s12894-017-0268-5) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Recent research on the role of urodynamic study in the diagnosis and treatment of male lower urinary tract symptoms and urinary incontinence

Although evidence shows that urodynamic study may not improve outcomes, it can be used to evaluate men with lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTSs) which have not been adequately delineated and treated. In young men with LUTS not responding to treatment based on clinical examination, or elderly men with LUTS and incontinence, a complete urodynamic evaluation is mandatory to understand the pathophysiology underlying LUTS, such as bladder outlet obstruction (BOO), detrusor overactivity, and detrusor underactivity. Preoperative urodynamic study-proven BOO is a predictor of a successful surgical outcome. An urodynamic study should be performed when patients with LUTS are planning to undergo surgical treatment for benign prostatic obstruction.

The role of preoperative urodynamics in stress urinary incontinence surgery

The routine use of urodynamics prior to incontinence surgery continues to be debated. The evidence available from randomized, control trials suggests that preoperative urodynamics do not improve surgical outcomes and are not cost-effective.

Bladder ultrasonography for diagnosing detrusor overactivity: test accuracy study and economic evaluation

BACKGROUND

Urodynamics (UDS) has been considered the gold standard test for detrusor overactivity (DO) in women with an overactive bladder (OAB). Bladder ultrasonography to measure bladder wall thickness (BWT) is less invasive and has been proposed as an alternative test.

OBJECTIVES

To estimate the reliability, reproducibility, accuracy and acceptability of BWT in women with OAB, measured by ultrasonography, in the diagnosis of DO; to explore the role of UDS and its impact on treatment outcomes; and to conduct an economic evaluation of alternative care pathways.

DESIGN

A cross-sectional test accuracy study.

SETTING

22 UK hospitals.

PARTICIPANTS

687 women with OAB.

METHODS

BWT was measured using transvaginal ultrasonography, and DO was assessed using UDS, which was performed blind to ultrasonographic findings. Intraobserver and interobserver reproducibility were assessed by repeated measurements from scans in 37 and 57 women, respectively, and by repeated scans in 27 women. Sensitivity and specificity were computed at pre-specified thresholds. The smallest real differences detectable of BWT were estimated using one-way analysis of variance. The pain and acceptability of both tests were evaluated by a questionnaire. Patient symptoms were measured before testing and after 6 and 12 months using the International Consultation on Incontinence modular Questionnaire Overactive Bladder (short form) (ICIQ-OAB) questionnaire and a global impression of improvement elicited at 12 months. Interventions and patient outcomes were analysed according to urodynamic diagnoses and BWT measurements. A decision-analytic model compared the cost-effectiveness of care strategies using UDS, ultrasonography or clinical history, estimating the cost per woman successfully treated and the cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY).

RESULTS

BWT showed very low sensitivity and specificity at all pre-specified cut-off points, and there was no evidence of discrimination at any threshold (p = 0.25). Extensive sensitivity and subgroup analyses did not alter the interpretation of these findings. The smallest detectable difference in BWT was estimated to be 2 mm. Pain levels following both tests appeared relatively low. The proportion of women who found the test 'totally acceptable' was significantly higher with ultrasonography than UDS (81% vs. 56%; p < 0.001). Overall, subsequent treatment was highly associated with urodynamic diagnosis (p < 0.0001). There was no evidence that BWT had any relationship with the global impression of improvement responses at 20 months (p = 0.4). Bladder ultrasonography was more costly and less effective than the other strategies. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of basing treatment on the primary clinical presentation compared with UDS was £491,500 per woman successfully treated and £60,200 per QALY. Performing a UDS in those women with a clinical history of mixed urinary incontinence had an ICER of £19,500 per woman successfully treated and £12,700 per QALY compared with the provision of urodynamic to all women. For DO cases detected, UDS was the most cost-effective strategy.

CONCLUSION

There was no evidence that BWT had any relationship with DO, regardless of the cut-off point, nor any relationship to symptoms as measured by the ICIQ-OAB. Bladder ultrasonography has no diagnostic or prognostic value as a test in this condition. Furthermore, despite its greater acceptability, BWT measurement was not sufficiently reliable or reproducible.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN46820623.

FUNDING

This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 20, No. 7. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Factors Related to the Occurrence of Urinary Tract Infection Following a Urodynamic Study in Patients With Spinal Cord Injury

Objective

To analyze the factors related to urinary tract infection (UTI) occurrence after an urodynamic study (UDS) in patients with spinal cord injury (SCI).

Methods

We retrospectively investigated the medical records of 387 patients with SCI who underwent UDS with prophylactic antibiotic therapy between January 2012 and December 2012. Among them, 140 patients met the inclusion criteria and were divided into two groups, UTI and non-UTI. We statistically analyzed the following factors between the two groups: age, sex, level of injury, SCI duration, spinal cord independence measure, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug use, diabetes mellitus, the American Spinal Injury Association impairment scale (AIS), lower extremity spasticity, a history of UTI within the past 4 weeks prior to the UDS, symptoms and signs of neurogenic bladder, urination methods, symptoms during the UDS and UDS results.

Results

Among the 140 study participants, the UTI group comprised 12 patients and the non-UTI group comprised 128 patients. On univariate analysis, a history of UTI within the past 4 weeks prior to the UDS was significant and previous autonomic dysreflexia before the UDS showed a greater tendency to influence the UTI group. Multivariable logistic regression analysis using these two variables showed that the former variable was significantly associated with UTI and the latter variable was not significantly associated with UTI.

Conclusion

In patients with SCI, a history of UTI within the past 4 weeks prior to the UDS was a risk factor for UTI after the UDS accompanied by prophylactic antibiotic therapy. Therefore, more careful pre-treatment should be considered when these patients undergo a UDS.

INVESTIGATE-I (INVasive Evaluation before Surgical Treatment of Incontinence Gives Added Therapeutic Effect?): a mixed-methods study to assess the feasibility of a future randomised controlled trial of invasive urodynamic testing prior to surgery for stress urinary incontinence in women

BACKGROUND

The position of invasive urodynamic testing in the diagnostic pathway for urinary incontinence (UI) is unclear. Systematic reviews have called for further trials evaluating clinical utility, although a preliminary feasibility study was considered appropriate.

OBJECTIVES

To inform the decision whether or not to proceed to a definitive randomised trial of invasive urodynamic testing compared with clinical assessment with non-invasive tests, prior to surgery in women with stress UI (SUI) or stress predominant mixed UI (MUI).

DESIGN

A mixed-methods study comprising a pragmatic multicentre randomised pilot trial; economic evaluation; survey of clinicians' views about invasive urodynamic testing; qualitative interviews with clinicians and trial participants.

SETTING

Urogynaecology, female urology and general gynaecology units in Newcastle, Leicester, Swansea, Sheffield, Northumberland, Gateshead and South Tees.

PARTICIPANTS

Trial recruits were women with SUI or stress predominant MUI who were considering surgery after unsuccessful conservative treatment. Relevant clinicians completed two online surveys. Subsets of survey respondents and trial participants took part in separate qualitative interview studies.

INTERVENTIONS

Pilot trial participants were randomised to undergo clinical assessment with non-invasive tests (control arm); or assessment as controls, plus invasive urodynamic testing (intervention arm).

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Confirmation that units can identify and recruit eligible women; acceptability of investigation strategies and data collection tools; acquisition of outcome data to determine the sample size for a definitive trial. The proposed primary outcome for the definitive trial was International Consultation on Incontinence Modular Questionnaire (ICIQ) Female Lower Urinary Tract Symptoms (ICIQ-FLUTS) (total score) 6 months after surgery or the start of non-surgical treatment; secondary outcomes included: ICIQ-FLUTS (subscales); ICIQ Urinary Incontinence Short Form; ICIQ Lower Urinary Tract Symptoms Quality of Life; Urogenital Distress Inventory; EuroQol-5D; costs, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and incremental cost per QALY, Short Form 12; 3-day bladder diary.

RESULTS

Of 284 eligible women, 222 (78%) were recruited; 165/219 (75%) returned questionnaires at baseline and 125/200 (63%) who were sent questionnaires at follow-up. There were few missing data items in returned questionnaires, with individual outcome scales calculable for 81%-94%. Most women underwent surgery; management plans were changed in 19 (19%) participants following invasive urodynamic testing. Participant Costs Questionnaires were returned by 53% 6 months after treatment; complete data to undertake cost-utility analysis were available in 27% (intervention) and 47% (control). While insufficient to recommend changes in practice, the results suggest further research would be valuable. All clinicians responding to the survey had access to invasive urodynamic testing, and most saw it as essential prior to surgery in women with SUI with or without other symptoms; nevertheless, 70% considered the research question underlying INVESTIGATE important and most were willing to randomise patients in a definitive trial. Participants interviewed were positive about the trial and associated documentation; the desire of some women to avoid invasive urodynamic testing contrasted with opinions expressed by clinicians through both survey and interview responses.

CONCLUSIONS

All elements of a definitive trial and economic evaluation were rehearsed; several areas for protocol modification were identified. Such a trial would require to 400-900 participants, depending on the difference in primary outcome sought.

FUTURE WORK

A definitive trial of invasive urodynamic testing versus clinical assessment prior to surgery for SUI or stress predominant MUI should be undertaken.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN71327395.

FUNDING

The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

Invasive urodynamic studies for the management of lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) in men with voiding dysfunction

BACKGROUND

Invasive urodynamic tests are used to investigate men with lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) and voiding dysfunction to determine a definitive objective diagnosis. The aim is to help clinicians select the treatment that is most likely to be successful. These investigations are invasive and time-consuming.

OBJECTIVES

To determine whether performing invasive urodynamic investigation, as opposed to other methods of diagnosis such as non-invasive urodynamics or clinical history and examination alone, reduces the number of men with continuing symptoms of voiding dysfunction. This goal will be achieved by critically appraising and summarising current evidence from randomised controlled trials related to clinical outcomes and cost-effectiveness. This review is not intended to consider whether urodynamic tests are reliable for making clinical diagnoses, nor whether one type of urodynamic test is better than another for this purpose.The following comparisons were made.• Urodynamics versus clinical management.• One type of urodynamics versus another.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (2014, issue 10), MEDLINE (1 January 1946 to Week 4 October 2014), MEDLINE In-Process and other non-indexed citations (covering 27 November 2014; all searched on 28 November 2014), EMBASE Classic and EMBASE (1 January 2010 to Week 47 2014, searched on 28 November 2014), ClinicalTrials.gov and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (WHO ICTRP) (searched on 1 December 2014 and 3 December 2014, respectively), as well as the reference lists of relevant articles.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised and quasi-randomised trials comparing clinical outcomes in men who were and were not investigated with the use of invasive urodynamics, or comparing one type of urodynamics against another, were included. Trials were excluded if they did not report clinical outcomes.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Three review authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted data.

MAIN RESULTS

We included two trials, but data were available for only 339 men in one trial, of whom 188 underwent invasive urodynamic studies. We found evidence of risk of bias, such as lack of outcome information for 24 men in one arm of the trial.Statistically significant evidence suggests that the tests did change clinical decision making. Men in the invasive urodynamics arm were more likely to have their management changed than men in the control arm (proportion with change in management 24/188 (13%) vs 0/151 (0%), risk ratio (RR) 39.41, 95% confidence interval (CI) 2.42 to 642.74). However, the quality of the evidence was low.Low-quality evidence indicates that men in the invasive urodynamics group were less likely to undergo surgery as treatment for voiding LUTS (164/188 (87%) vs 151/151 (100%), RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.83 to 0.92).Investigators observed no difference in urine flow rates before and after surgery for LUTS (mean percentage increase in urine flow rate, 140% in invasive urodynamic group vs 149% in immediate surgery group, P value = 0.13). Similarly, they found no differences between groups with regards to International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS) (mean percentage decrease in IPSS score, 58% in invasive urodynamics group vs 59% in immediate surgery group, P value = 0.22).No evidence was available to demonstrate whether differences in management equated to improved health outcomes, such as relief of symptoms of voiding dysfunction or improved quality of life.No evidence from randomised trials revealed the adverse effects associated with invasive urodynamic studies.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Although invasive urodynamic testing did change clinical decision making, we found no evidence to demonstrate whether this led to reduced symptoms of voiding dysfunction after treatment. Larger definitive trials of better quality are needed, in which men are randomly allocated to management based on invasive urodynamic findings or to management based on findings obtained by other diagnostic means. This research will show whether performance of invasive urodynamics results in reduced symptoms of voiding dysfunction after treatment.

Dysfunction of lower urinary tract in patients with spinal cord injury

Over the past 50 years, the mortality for urorenal cause in patients with spinal cord injuries (SCI) has decreased from over 75% to 2.3%, as a result of dramatic improvements in the diagnosis and management of lower urinary tract dysfunction (LUTD). The aims of this chapter are to assess the physiopathology of upper and lower motor neuron lesion on bladder and sphincter function after SCI, to give an overview of required clinical and instrumental examination and to discuss treatment modalities. Videourodynamic examination plays a key role in the assessment and follow-up of LUTD in SCI patients, in conjunction with neurophysiological and radiological examinations. The cornerstone of bladder management in SCI is clean intermittent self-catheterization, but often other treatments are needed to achieve full continence, to reduce infections and stone formation, to protect the upper urinary tract from excessive bladder pressure, and to prevent chronic renal failure. Treatments may be pharmacologic (i.e., anticholinergic drugs and botulinum toxin) or surgical (by enterocystoplasty or urinary diversion). In selected cases, neuromodulation and sacral root stimulation can be used to reduce detrusor overactivity and empty the bladder. Management of LUTD in SCI patients requires a deep knowledge of spinal cord medicine and functioning of patients with neurologic disability.

Urodynamics in stress incontinence: when are they necessary and how do we use them?

Stress urinary incontinence is a prevalent condition that significantly impairs the quality of life. This article presents a critical summary of the current literature on the use and value of urodynamic studies in the evaluation of stress urinary incontinence in women.

Urodynamic studies for management of urinary incontinence in children and adults: A short version Cochrane systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Urodynamic tests are used to investigate people who have urinary incontinence or other urinary symptoms in order to make an objective diagnosis. The investigations are invasive and time consuming.

OBJECTIVES

To determine if treatment according to a urodynamic-based diagnosis, compared to treatment based on history and examination, leads to more effective clinical care and better clinical outcomes.

SEARCH METHODS

Cochrane Incontinence Group Specialized Register (searched February 19, 2013); reference lists of relevant articles.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomized and quasi-randomized trials in people who were and were not investigated using urodynamics, or comparing one type of urodynamic test against another.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

At least two independent review authors carried out trial assessment, selection, and data abstraction.

RESULTS

We found eight trials but data were available for only 1,036 women in seven trials. Women undergoing urodynamics were more likely to have their management changed (17% vs. 3%, risk ratio [RR] 5.07, 95% CI 1.87-13.74). Two trials suggested that women were more likely to receive drugs (RR 2.09, 95% CI 1.32-3.31), but, in five trials, women were not more likely to undergo surgery (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.88-1.12). There was no statistically significant difference in urinary incontinence in women who had urodynamics (37%) compared with those undergoing history and clinical examination alone (36%) (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.86-1.21).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

While urodynamics did change clinical decision-making, there was some high-quality evidence that this did not result in lower urinary incontinence rates after treatment.

Urodynamic studies for management of urinary incontinence in children and adults

BACKGROUND

Urodynamic tests are used to investigate people who have urinary incontinence or other urinary symptoms in order to make a definitive, objective diagnosis. The aim is to help select the treatment most likely to be successful. The investigations are invasive and time consuming.

OBJECTIVES

The objective of this review was to determine if treatment according to a urodynamic-based diagnosis, compared to treatment based on history and examination, led to more effective clinical care of people with urinary incontinence and better clinical outcomes.The intention was to test the following hypotheses in predefined subgroups of people with incontinence:(i) urodynamic investigations improve the clinical outcomes;(ii) urodynamic investigations alter clinical decision making;(iii) one type of urodynamic test is better than another in improving the outcomes of management of incontinence or influencing clinical decisions, or both.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Incontinence Group Specialised Register, which contains trials identified from the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE and MEDLINE In-Process, handsearching of journals and conference proceedings (searched 19 February 2013), and the reference lists of relevant articles.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised and quasi-randomised trials comparing clinical outcomes in groups of people who were and were not investigated using urodynamics, or comparing one type of urodynamic test against another were included. Trials were excluded if they did not report clinical outcomes.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted data.

MAIN RESULTS

Eight trials involving around 1100 people were included but data were only available for 1036 women in seven trials, of whom 526 received urodynamics. There was some evidence of risk of bias. The four deaths and 12 dropouts in the control arm of one trial were unexplained.There was significant evidence that the tests did change clinical decision making. Women in the urodynamic arms of three trials were more likely to have their management changed (proportion with change in management compared with the control arm 17% versus 3%, risk ratio (RR) 5.07, 95% CI 1.87 to 13.74), although there was statistical heterogeneity. There was evidence from two trials that women treated after urodynamic investigations were more likely to receive drugs (RR 2.09, 95% CI 1.32 to 3.31). On the other hand, in five trials women undergoing treatment following urodynamic investigation were not more likely to undergo surgery (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.12).There was no statistically significant difference however in the number of women with urinary incontinence if they received treatment guided by urodynamics (37%) compared with those whose treatment was based on history and clinical findings alone (36%) (for example, RR for the number with incontinence after the first year 1.02, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.21). It was calculated that the number of women needed to treat was 100 women (95% CI 86 to 114 women) undergoing urodynamics to prevent one extra individual being incontinent at one year.One trial reported adverse effects and no significant difference was found (RR 1.10, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.50).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

While urodynamic tests did change clinical decision making, there was some evidence that this did not result in better outcomes in terms of a difference in urinary incontinence rates after treatment. There was no evidence about their use in men, children, or people with neurological diseases. Larger definitive trials are needed in which people are randomly allocated to management according to urodynamic findings or to management based on history and clinical examination to determine if performance of urodynamics results in higher continence rates after treatment.

Antibiotic prophylaxis for short-term catheter bladder drainage in adults

BACKGROUND

Urinary tract infections account for about 40% of hospital-acquired (nosocomial) infections, and about 80% of urinary tract infections acquired in hospital are associated with urinary catheters.

OBJECTIVES

To determine if certain antibiotic prophylaxes are better than others in terms of prevention of urinary tract infections, complications, quality of life and cost-effectiveness in short-term catheterisation in adults.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Incontinence Group Specialised Register, which contains trials identified from the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE and MEDLINE in Process, and handsearching of journals and conference proceedings (searched 31st October 2012). Additionally, we examined all reference lists of identified trials.

SELECTION CRITERIA

All randomised and quasi-randomised trials comparing antibiotic prophylaxis for short-term (up to and including 14 days) catheterisation in adults.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Data were independently extracted by all review authors and compared. Disagreements were resolved by discussion. Data were processed as described in the Cochrane Handbook for Systemtic Reviews of Interventions. Where data had not been fully reported, clarification was sought directly from the authors of the trial.

MAIN RESULTS

Six parallel-group randomised controlled trials with 789 participants met the inclusion criteria. All six trials compared antibiotic prophylaxis versus no prophylaxis. Studies presented a low to unclear risk of bias with similar interventions and measured outcomes.The primary outcome of bacteriuria was less common in the prophylaxis group amongst surgical patients with asymptomatic bacteriuria (I(2) = 0; risk ratio (RR) 0.20; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.13 to 0.31) . Two non-surgical studies could not be combined in a meta-analysis due to heterogeneity and only one showed significantly fewer cases of bacteriuria (RR 0.19; 95% CI 0.09 to 0.37).Two trials of surgical patients with asymptomatic bacteriuria only (255 participants) compared one type of antibiotic prophylaxis with another and neither study showed a significant difference in cases of bacteriuria.One study (78 participants) compared antibiotic prophylaxis in patients at catheterisation only versus antibiotic prophylaxis throughout catheterisation period with asymptomatic bacteriuria. Antibiotics at catheterisation only, resulted in significantly fewer cases of bacteriuria than giving prophylaxis throughout the catheterisation period (RR 0.29 95% CI 0.09 to 0.91).Secondary data of pyuria were provided by two surgical studies (255 participants). When studies were pooled, pyuria occurred in significantly fewer cases in the prophylactic antibiotic group (RR 0.23, 95% CI 0.13 to 0.42). The number of gram-negative isolates in patients' urine just before catheter removal in one study (RR 0.05, 95% CI 0.00 to 0.79) and six weeks after hospital discharge (RR 0.36, 95% CI 0.23 to 0.56) were significantly lower. There were no events in the treatment group before catheter removal. When pooled data from two studies showed significantly reduced febrile morbidity in those receiving antibiotic prophylaxis (RR 0.53 95% CI 0.31 to 0.89).Although all studies assessed micro-organisms isolated from the urine specimens the data were too heterogenous to pool in a meta-analysis and have been provided in a narrative form. Further secondary data such as economic analysis, length of stay and quality of life were not covered in detail.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The limited evidence indicated that receiving prophylactic antibiotics reduced the rate of bacteriuria and other signs of infection, such as pyuria, febrile morbidity and gram-negative isolates in patients' urine, in surgical patients who undergo bladder drainage for at least 24 hours postoperatively. There was also limited evidence that prophylactic antibiotics reduced bacteriuria in non-surgical patients.