Antibiotic prophylaxis with urodynamic studies in spinal cord injury: Assessing practice patterns and outcomes to guide future practice in a single center.

Pham D, Chi B, Skelton F, Huang D. Antibiotic prophylaxis with urodynamic studies in spinal cord injury: Assessing practice patterns and outcomes to guide future practice in a single center. The journal of spinal cord medicine. 2024 Feb 23; 1-6.

Related HSR&D Project(s)

• CDA 17-170 – Optimizing Bacteriuria Management in Veterans with Spinal Cord Injury

Dimensions for VA is a web-based tool available to VA staff that enables detailed searches of published research and research projects.

If you have VA-Intranet access, click here for more information vaww.hsrd.research.va.gov/dimensions/

VA staff not currently on the VA network can access Dimensions by registering for an account using their VA email address.    Search Dimensions for VA for this citation
* Don't have VA-internal network access or a VA email address? Try searching the free-to-the-public version of Dimensions

Search for Abstract from PubMed

---

Abstract:

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%. 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%; = 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.