Ureteral stent-associated infection and sepsis: pathogenesis and prevention: a review.

Ureteral stents are commonly used devices in hospital settings. However, their usage is often complicated by associated urinary tract infections as a result of bacterial adhesion onto the indwelling implant surfaces, followed by the formation of layers of biofilm. Once formed, the biofilm is exceedingly difficult to remove, potentially leading to further morbidity and even urosepsis. Urosepsis, where pathogens from the urinary tract enter the bloodstream, has a mortality rate of up to 50% of severely infected patients. Hence, it is important to understand its pathogenesis. In this review, ureteral stent-associated urinary tract infection and urosepsis will be addressed. In particular, the bacterial mechanisms involved, as well as the prevention and treatment of these infections will be discussed.

Metabolic evaluation guidelines in patients with nephrolithiasis: Are they being followed? Results of a national, multi-institutional, quality-assessment study.

INTRODUCTION: The significant cost burden of kidney stones underscores the importance of best clinical practice in kidney stone management. We evaluated adherence to kidney stone metabolic evaluation guidelines in a Canadian population and the interest of patients with regard to prevention. METHODS: A questionnaire based on Canadian Urological Association (CUA) best practice guidelines was designed. Patients presenting for extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy treatment (ESWL) were administered this questionnaire to evaluate risk factors of stone disease and assess the use of metabolic evaluations. Patients were asked if they received explanations about their results and if they were interested in kidney stone prevention. RESULTS: We identified 530 patients at five academic institutions; 79.4% had at least one indication to receive a metabolic evaluation (high-risk stone formers), which increased to 96.6% if first-time stone formers whom reported an interest in metabolic evaluation were included. However, only 41.1 % of these patients had a metabolic evaluation. Endourologists ordered metabolic evaluation more often than other referring urologists (63.6% vs. 36.5%; p<0.001). Furthermore, urologists ordered metabolic evaluations more often than other prescribing physicians (68.9% vs. 31.1%; p<0.001). Sixty-two percent of patients received explanations about their metabolic evaluation results and 77.5% understood them. Regarding prevention, 84.1% and 83.8% were interested in more explanations and in following a diet or taking a medication, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Adherence to CUA metabolic evaluation guidelines is suboptimal and could be improved by urologists referring patients for ESWL. Communication between physician and patient may not be adequate. The majority of stone formers are interested in kidney stone prevention.