Antibiotic prophylaxis prior to urodynamic study in patients with traumatic spinal cord injury. Is there an indication?

ABSTRACT Study design: Retrospective cohort of patients with traumatic spinal cord injury (SCI) that have been hospitalized for physical-functional rehabilitation purposes. Objectives: To compare the incidence of urinary tract infection (UTI) after urodynamic study (UDS) in three hospitals that adopted different protocols with regard to the preparation of patients. Setting: Sarah Network of Rehabilitation Hospitals, Brazil. Materials and Methods: Between 2014 and 2015, 661 patients from three units of the same hospital network, one of which does not use antimicrobial prophylaxis independently of urine culture results, were evaluated after having undergone UDS. The results were compared in both univariate and multivariate analyses (logistic regression). Results: The global rate of UTI after UDS was that of 3.18% (IC 95% 2.1-4.8), with no differences between the units. In the univariate analysis the only variable that was associated with UTI after UDS was that of T6 injuries or above (P = 0.029). The logistic regression has confirmed this result, with an adjusted odds ratio of 3.06 (IC 95% 1.01 to 9.26; P = 0.0476). The use of antimicrobial prophylaxis did not alter that risk. Conclusions: This study has demonstrated that the use of antimicrobials does not prevent UTI after UDS. Patients with T6 traumatic SCI or above have got three times more chance of developing UTI after UDS if compared to those with a T7 injury or below, independently of the use of antimicrobials. Even in these patients the use of antimicrobials would not be justified.

Antibiotic prophylaxis prior to urodynamic study in patients with traumatic spinal cord injury. Is there an indication?

STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective cohort of patients with traumatic spinal cord injury (SCI) that have been hospitalized for physical-functional rehabilitation purposes. OBJECTIVES: To compare the incidence of urinary tract infection (UTI) after urodynamic study (UDS) in three hospitals that adopted different protocols with regard to the preparation of patients. SETTING: Sarah Network of Rehabilitation Hospitals, Brazil. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Between 2014 and 2015, 661 patients from three units of the same hospital network, one of which does not use antimicrobial prophylaxis independently of urine culture results, were evaluated after having undergone UDS. The results were compared in both univariate and multivariate analyses (logistic regression). RESULTS: The global rate of UTI after UDS was that of 3.18% (IC 95% 2.1-4.8), with no differences between the units. In the univariate analysis the only variable that was associated with UTI after UDS was that of T6 injuries or above (P = 0.029). The logistic regression has confi rmed this result, with an adjusted odds ratio of 3.06 (IC 95% 1.01 to 9.26; P = 0.0476). The use of antimicrobial prophylaxis did not alter that risk. CONCLUSIONS: This study has demonstrated that the use of antimicrobials does not prevent UTI after UDS. Patients with T6 traumatic SCI or above have got three times more chance of developing UTI after UDS if compared to those with a T7 injury or below, independently of the use of antimicrobials. Even in these patients the use of antimicrobials would not be justified.

Lower urinary tract dysfunction in children with cerebral palsy.

AIMS: The focus of this study was to evaluate urodynamic findings and possible renal damage in children with cerebral palsy and urinary symptoms. METHODS: Children with cerebral palsy and lower urinary tract symptoms were studied. Patients were submitted to urodynamic evaluation, urine examination, measurement of serum creatinine, and renal and urinary tract ultrasonography. Voiding cystourethrography was performed on patients with urinary tract infections. RESULTS: Thirty-seven children were investigated, including 21 females and 16 males. The mean age was 7 years and 8 months [SD of 4 years 6 months], with a range from 1 to 17-year-old. The symptoms that led to evaluation were urinary infections in 21 56.7% cases, incontinence in 15 (40.5%) cases, increased voiding frequency in six (16%) cases, enuresis in five (13.5%) cases, and hesitancy and urgency in two (5.4%) cases each. The urodynamic findings involved reduced bladder capacity in 20 (54%) cases, with mean cystometric capacity of 168.0 +/- 122.2 ml. Detrusor overactivity was observed in 13 (35.1%) cases, with mean of 67.9 +/- 34.6 cmH(2)O. The range of the residual volume was 17.5 +/- 33.5 ml, which was increased in five (13.5%) cases. Low bladder compliance was seen in four (10.8%) patients, mean bladder compliance of 22.2 +/- 12.2 ml/cmH(2)O. No hydronephrosis or reflux was observed. CONCLUSION: Almost one-third of the patients with cerebral palsy and urinary symptoms presented with normal urodynamic findings. The most frequent findings were reduced bladder capacity, detrusor overactivity, and increased post-void residual. No urinary tract complications were observed.