Medication Changes and Diagnosis of New Chronic Illnesses in COVID-19 Intensive Care Unit Survivors.

BACKGROUND: Currently, there is limited literature on the impact of the COVID-19 infection on medications and medical conditions in COVID-19 intensive care unit (ICU) survivors. Our study is, to our knowledge, the first multicenter study to describe the prevalence of new medical conditions and medication changes at hospital discharge in COVID-19 ICU survivors. OBJECTIVE: To determine the number of medical conditions and medications at hospital admission compared to at hospital discharge in COVID-19 ICU survivors. METHODS: Retrospective multicenter observational study (7 ICUs) evaluated new medical conditions and medication changes at hospital discharge in patients with COVID-19 infection admitted to an ICU between March 1, 2020, to March 1, 2021. Patient and hospital characteristics, baseline and hospital discharge medication and medical conditions, ICU and hospital length of stay, and Charlson comorbidity index were collected. Descriptive statistics were used to describe patient characteristics and number and type of medical conditions and medications. Paired t-test was used to compare number of medical conditions and medications from hospital discharge to admission. RESULTS: Of the 973 COVID-19 ICU survivors, 67.4% had at least one new medical condition and 88.2% had at least one medication change. Median number of medical conditions (increased from 3 to 4, P < .0001) and medications (increased from 5 to 8, P < .0001) increased from admission to discharge. Most common new medical conditions at discharge were pulmonary disorders, venous thromboembolism, psychiatric disorders, infection, and diabetes. Most common therapeutic categories associated with medication change were cardiology, gastroenterology, pain, hematology, and endocrinology. CONCLUSION AND RELEVANCE: Our study found that the number of medical conditions and medications increased from hospital admission to discharge. Our results provide additional data to help guide providers on using targeted approaches to manage medications and diseases in COVID-19 ICU survivors after hospital discharge.

Remdesivir Use in the Setting of Severe Renal Impairment: A Theoretical Concern or Real Risk?

BACKGROUND: Remdesivir (RDV) is US FDA approved for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) but not recommended in severe renal impairment (SRI, Creatinine clearance <30mL/min or requiring renal replacement therapy). Few studies have evaluated RDV in patients with SRI. METHODS: Hospitalized patients who received RDV between 1 May 2020 and 31 October 2020 were analyzed in a retrospective chart review. We compared incident adverse events (AEs) in patients with and without SRI, including hepatotoxicity, nephrotoxicity, any reported AE, mortality, and length of stay. RESULTS: Of a total of 135 patients, 20 had SRI. Patients with SRI were significantly older (70 vs 54 years, P = .0001). The incidence of possible AEs was 30% among those with SRI vs 11% without (P = .06). Liver function test (LFT) elevations occurred in 10% vs 4% (P = .28), and serum creatinine (SCr) elevations in 27% vs 6% (P = .02) of patients with SRI vs without, respectively. LFT and SCr elevations were not attributed to RDV in either group. Mortality and length of stay were consistent with historical controls. CONCLUSIONS: RDV AEs occurred infrequently and overall were not significantly different between those with and without SRI. While more of patients with SRI experienced SCr elevations, 3 (75%) patients had acute kidney injury prior to RDV. The use of RDV in this small series of patients with SRI appeared to be relatively safe, and the potential benefit outweighed the theoretical risk of liver or renal toxicity. Additional studies are needed to confirm this finding.

Late onset infectious complications and safety of tocilizumab in the management of COVID-19.

BACKGROUND: Tocilizumab (TCZ) has been used in the management of COVID-19-related cytokine release syndrome (CRS). Concerns exist regarding the risk of infections and drug-related toxicities. We sought to evaluate the incidence of these TCZ complications among COVID-19 patients. METHODS: All adult inpatients with COVID-19 between 1 March and 25 April 2020 that received TCZ were included. We compared the rate of late-onset infections (>48 hours following admission) to a control group matched according to intensive care unit admission and mechanical ventilation requirement. Post-TCZ toxicities evaluated included: elevated liver function tests (LFTs), GI perforation, diverticulitis, neutropenia, hypertension, allergic reactions, and infusion-related reactions. RESULTS: Seventy-four patients were included in each group. Seventeen infections in the TCZ group (23%) and 6 (8%) infections in the control group occurred >48 hours after admission (P = .013). Most infections were bacterial with pneumonia being the most common manifestation. Among patients receiving TCZ, LFT elevations were observed in 51%, neutropenia in 1.4%, and hypertension in 8%. The mortality rate among those that received TCZ was greater than the control (39% versus 23%, P = .03). CONCLUSION: Late onset infections were significantly more common among those receiving TCZ. Combining infections and TCZ-related toxicities, 61% of patients had a possible post-TCZ complication. While awaiting clinical trial results to establish the efficacy of TCZ for COVID-19 related CRS, the potential for infections and TCZ related toxicities should be carefully weighed when considering use.

Reducing the use of empiric antibiotic therapy in COVID-19 on hospital admission.

BACKGROUND: Empiric antibiotics for community acquired bacterial pneumonia (CABP) are often prescribed to patients with COVID-19, despite a low reported incidence of co-infections. Stewardship interventions targeted at facilitating appropriate antibiotic prescribing for CABP among COVID-19 patients are needed. We developed a guideline for antibiotic initiation and discontinuation for CABP in COVID-19 patients. The purpose of this study was to assess the impact of this intervention on the duration of empiric CABP antibiotic therapy among patients with COVID-19. METHODS: This was a single-center, retrospective, quasi-experimental study of adult patients admitted between 3/1/2020 to 4/25/2020 with COVID-19 pneumonia, who were initiated on empiric CABP antibiotics. Patients were excluded if they were initiated on antibiotics > 48 h following admission or if another source of infection was identified. The primary outcome was the duration of antibiotic therapy (DOT) prior to the guideline (March 1 to March27, 2020) and after guideline implementation (March 28 to April 25, 2020). We also evaluated the clinical outcomes (mortality, readmissions, length of stay) among those initiated on empiric CABP antibiotics. RESULTS: A total of 506 patients with COVID-19 were evaluated, 102 pre-intervention and 404 post-intervention. Prior to the intervention, 74.5% (n = 76) of patients with COVID-19 received empiric antibiotics compared to only 42% of patients post-intervention (n = 170), p < 0.001. The median DOT in the post-intervention group was 1.3 days shorter (p < 0.001) than the pre-intervention group, and antibiotics directed at atypical bacteria DOT was reduced by 2.8 days (p < 0.001). More patients in the post-intervention group were initiated on antibiotics based on criteria consistent with our guideline (68% versus 87%, p = 0.001). There were no differences between groups in terms of clinical outcomes. CONCLUSION: Following the implementation of a guideline outlining recommendations for initiating and discontinuing antibiotics for CABP among COVID-19 inpatients, we observed a reduction in antibiotic prescribing and DOT. The guideline also resulted in a significant increase in the rate of guideline-congruent empiric antibiotic initiation.

From Etest to Vitek 2: Impact of Enterococcal Linezolid Susceptibility Testing Methodology on Time to Active Therapy.

Different linezolid antimicrobial susceptibility testing (AST) methodologies yield various results. In 2018, we transitioned our linezolid AST methodology from the Etest to Vitek 2. We sought to evaluate the impact of this change on antibiotic use among 181 inpatients with vancomycin-resistant enterococcal (VRE) infections. The transition from Etest to Vitek 2 resulted in an increase in linezolid susceptibility (38% versus 96%; P < 0.001) and a reduction in time to active antibiotic therapy (3 versus 2.6 days; P = 0.007).

Impact of mail order pharmacy use and travel time to pharmacy on viral suppression among people living with HIV.

This study aimed to evaluate the impact of mail order pharmacy services and travel time to pharmacy on HIV viral suppression rates among people living with HIV. For adult patients receiving HIV care from 2010 to 2015 at an urban HIV care clinic, we collected demographics, pharmacy type, viral load, and patient home and pharmacy address. We geocoded addresses and measured travel time to pharmacy by car and public transportation. No difference was observed in recent viral suppression rates based on pharmacy type (p = 0.41), distance to pharmacy (p = 0.16), or travel time to pharmacy by car (p = 0.20) or public transportation (p = 0.15). The only factors significantly associated with sustained viral suppression were number of doses per day of antiretroviral therapy, with patients prescribed twice daily regimens less likely to be virally suppressed than those prescribed once daily regimens (aOR 0.4, 95% CI, [0.1, 0.6]) and average household income in patients' zip code, with patients living in zip codes with average household income <$40,000 per year less likely to be virally suppressed than those living in zip codes with average income >$55,000 per year (aOR 0.2. 95% CI, [0.1, 0.7]).

Universal molecular Clostridioides difficile screening and overtreatment in solid organ transplant recipients.

BACKGROUND: Screening for Clostridioides difficile (CD) colonization can be performed using molecular testing to identify the presence of microbial DNA of the toxin gene. Colonization rates for hospitalized patients are as high as 20% and may be considerably higher in solid organ transplant (SOT) recipients. Treatment for CD should be based on clinical disease and not colonization, yet clinicians may misinterpret a positive CD screen resulting in overtreatment. OBJECTIVES: The objective of this analysis is to determine how often positive CD screens resulted in inappropriate treatment with oral vancomycin. METHODS: Clostridioides difficile screens were performed using the Xpert C difficile assay (Cepheid), a nucleic acid amplification testing method utilizing polymerase chain reaction (PCR), on peri-rectal swabs for newly admitted patients. This was a single-center cohort study of adult patients with CD screens hospitalized between July 2015 and November 2018. The primary outcome was the rate of inappropriate oral vancomycin treatment in all patients and in SOT recipients, defined as therapy in the absence of diarrhea. RESULTS: Of the 47 076 total CD screens reviewed, 1,921 were positive. In the SOT cohort, 58 of 329 screens were positive (4.1% vs 17.9%, P < .01). Of all patients with a positive CD screen, 20.1% (386/1921) were treated with oral vancomycin within 48 hours of swab collection. In the SOT cohort, 39.6% (23/58) with positive CD screens were treated with oral vancomycin within 48 hours. Of the SOT patients who received oral vancomycin, 39% (9/23) did not have true CD infection. CONCLUSION: Solid organ transplant recipients were more likely to have CD colonization detected by peri-rectal screening than the general inpatient population. SOT and non-SOT patients were treated with oral vancomycin at similar rates in response to the positive screen. Nearly half of the oral vancomycin use in SOT recipients was likely overtreatment, but this finding is limited by the low number of patients in this cohort.

A multicentre stewardship initiative to decrease excessive duration of antibiotic therapy for the treatment of community-acquired pneumonia.

Background: The increased emphasis on pneumonia-related performance measures and patient outcomes has led hospitals to implement multifaceted approaches to quickly identify patients with community-acquired pneumonia (CAP), start timely therapy and reduce readmission. However, there has been minimal focus on duration of therapy (DOT) and patients often receive prolonged antibiotic courses. The IDSA and American Thoracic Society (IDSA/ATS) CAP guidelines recommend 5 days of therapy for clinically stable patients that quickly defervesce and stewardship teams are well positioned to influence prescribing practices. Objectives: Determine the impact of a prospective stewardship intervention on total antibiotic DOT and associated clinical outcomes in hospitalized patients with CAP. Methods: This multicentre, quasi-experimental study evaluated three concurrent interventions over a 6 month period to promote appropriate DOT. All centres updated institutional CAP guidelines to promote IDSA/ATS-concordant DOT, provided education and conducted daily audit and feedback with intervention to provide patient-specific DOT recommendations. Results: A total of 600 patients with CAP were included (307 in the historical control group and 293 in the stewardship intervention group). The stewardship intervention increased compliance with DOT recommendations (42% versus 5.6%, P < 0.001) and reduced the median DOT per patient (6 versus 9 days, P < 0.001). Clinical outcomes, including mortality, readmission with pneumonia, presentation to the emergency centre/clinic with pneumonia and incidence of Clostridium difficile infection within 30 days of discharge, were not different between groups. Conclusions: This multicentre evaluation of a stewardship intervention in hospitalized CAP patients reduced the total antibiotic DOT and increased guideline-concordant DOT without adversely affecting patient outcomes.

Comparison of outcomes with vancomycin or metronidazole for mild-to-moderate Clostridium difficile associated diarrhea among solid organ transplant recipients: A retrospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Current guidelines recommend oral vancomycin or fidaxomicin for the treatment of mild-to-moderate Clostridium difficile associated diarrhea (CDAD), while metronidazole is recommended as an alternative when oral vancomycin and fidaxomicin are unavailable. However, data are lacking among the solid organ transplant (SOT) population. METHODS: This single center, retrospective cohort study evaluated adult SOT recipients with mild-to-moderate CDAD. Analysis 1 evaluated patients receiving initial therapy with metronidazole vs oral vancomycin for at least 72 hours. Analysis 2 evaluated patients receiving metronidazole vs oral vancomycin for at least 70% of the treatment duration. The primary outcome was treatment failure. Secondary outcomes included CDAD recurrence and all-cause mortality. RESULTS: Analysis 1 included 71 patients (metronidazole n = 50, oral vancomycin n = 21) and analysis 2 included 75 patients (metronidazole n = 42, oral vancomycin n = 33). No significant differences in C. difficile risk factors were observed between groups in either analysis. However, in both analyses, more patients in the oral vancomycin arm received antibiotics during the CDAD episode (analysis 1, 52% vs 26%, P = .03; analysis 2, 55% vs 32%, P < .01). Neither analysis demonstrated differences in treatment failure (analysis 1, metronidazole 16%, oral vancomycin 10%, P = .71; analysis 2, metronidazole 2%, oral vancomycin 6%, P = .58). CDAD recurrence and all-cause mortality were similar across groups in both analyses. CONCLUSIONS: Results suggest that both metronidazole and oral vancomycin are reasonable options for the treatment of mild-to-moderate CDAD in patients with SOT. No difference in treatment failure was observed; however, oral vancomycin may be preferred for higher risk patients, such as those receiving concurrent antibiotics.

Disease-based antimicrobial stewardship: a review of active and passive approaches to patient management.

Although new antimicrobial stewardship programmes (ASPs) often begin by targeting the reduction of antimicrobial use, an increasing focus of ASPs is to improve the management of specific infectious diseases. Disease-based antimicrobial stewardship emphasizes improving patient outcomes by optimizing antimicrobial use and increasing compliance with performance measures. Directing efforts towards the comprehensive management of specific infections allows ASPs to promote the shift in healthcare towards improving quality, safety and patient outcome metrics for specific diseases. This review evaluates published active and passive disease-based antimicrobial stewardship interventions and their impact on antimicrobial use and associated patient outcomes for patients with pneumonia, acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections, bloodstream infections, urinary tract infections, asymptomatic bacteriuria, Clostridium difficile infection and intra-abdominal infections. Current literature suggests that disease-based antimicrobial stewardship effects on medical management and patient outcomes vary based on infectious disease syndrome, resource availability and intervention type.

Daptomycin Improves Outcomes Regardless of Vancomycin MIC in a Propensity-Matched Analysis of Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus Bloodstream Infections.

Vancomycin remains the mainstay treatment for methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) bloodstream infections (BSIs) despite increased treatment failures. Daptomycin has been shown to improve clinical outcomes in patients with BSIs caused by MRSA isolates with vancomycin MICs of >1 mg/liter, but these studies relied on automated testing systems. We evaluated the outcomes of BSIs caused by MRSA isolates for which vancomycin MICs were determined by standard broth microdilution (BMD). A retrospective, matched cohort of patients with MRSA BSIs treated with vancomycin or daptomycin from January 2010 to March 2015 was completed. Patients were matched using propensity-adjusted logistic regression, which included age, Pitt bacteremia score, primary BSI source, and hospital of care. The primary endpoint was clinical failure, which was a composite endpoint of the following metrics: 30-day mortality, bacteremia with a duration of ≥7 days, or a change in anti-MRSA therapy due to persistent or worsening signs or symptoms. Secondary endpoints included MRSA-attributable mortality and the number of days of MRSA bacteremia. Independent predictors of failure were determined through conditional backwards-stepwise logistic regression with vancomycin BMD MIC forced into the model. A total of 262 patients were matched. Clinical failure was significantly higher in the vancomycin cohort than in the daptomycin cohort (45.0% versus 29.0%; P = 0.007). All-cause 30-day mortality was significantly higher in the vancomycin cohort (15.3% versus 6.1%; P = 0.024). These outcomes remained significant when stratified by vancomycin BMD MIC. There was no significant difference in the length of MRSA bacteremia. Variables independently associated with treatment failure included vancomycin therapy (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] = 2.16, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.24 to 3.76), intensive care unit admission (aOR = 2.46, 95% CI = 1.34 to 4.54), and infective endocarditis as the primary source (aOR = 2.33, 95% CI = 1.16 to 4.68). Treatment of MRSA BSIs with daptomycin was associated with reduced clinical failure and 30-day mortality; these findings were independent of vancomycin BMD MIC.

Impact of an antimicrobial stewardship-led intervention for Staphylococcus aureus bacteraemia: a quasi-experimental study.

BACKGROUND: Staphylococcus aureus bacteraemia (SAB) carries high rates of morbidity and mortality. Antimicrobial stewardship programmes (ASPs) are well situated to promote adherence to quality performance measures in order to optimize the management of SAB and associated clinical outcomes. METHODS: This uncontrolled pre-post quasi-experimental study evaluated compliance with an ASP-driven comprehensive care bundle and associated clinical outcomes for patients with SAB. The ASP provided recommendations to prescribers to promote adherence with quality performance measures, which included: initiate effective antibiotics within 24 h of Gram's stain; achieve therapeutic vancomycin trough concentration; provide ß-lactam therapy if MSSA; obtain repeat blood cultures every 48 h until clearance; complete appropriate treatment duration; eliminate or debride foci of infection; and obtain an echocardiogram for complicated bacteraemia. RESULTS: One hundred and seventy patients with SAB were included: 82 patients in the pre-intervention group and 88 patients in the ASP-intervention group. Overall bundle adherence to quality performance measures improved from 56.1% (46/82) in the pre-intervention group to 84.1% (74/88) in the ASP-intervention group (P < 0.001), which was associated with a reduction in 30 day readmission with SAB [9 patients (11.0%) versus 1 patient (1.1%), P = 0.008]. The 30 day mortality was numerically lower in the ASP-intervention group, but the difference was not statistically significant [16 patients (19.5%) versus 10 patients (11.4%), P = 0.2]. CONCLUSIONS: Implementation of an ASP-driven comprehensive care bundle for SAB improved adherence with performance measures and was associated with a decrease in hospital readmission for SAB.

Impact of the sequential implementation of a pharmacy-driven methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) nasal-swab ordering policy and vancomycin 72-hour restriction protocol on standardized antibiotic administration ratio (SAAR) data for antibiotics used for resistant gram-positive infections.

OBJECTIVE: Vancomycin is often initiated in hospitalized patients; however, it may be unnecessary or continued for longer durations than needed. Oversight of all vancomycin orders may not be feasible with widespread prescribing and strategies to enlist other clinicians to serve as stewards of vancomycin use are needed. We implemented 2 sequential interventions: a protocol in which the pharmacist orders MRSA nasal swab followed by a protocol requiring approval from pharmacists to continue vancomycin for >72 hours. METHODS: In this single-center, retrospective, quasi-experimental study, we evaluated vancomycin use after implementation of a pharmacy-driven MRSA nasal-swab ordering protocol and a vancomycin 72-hour restriction protocol. The primary outcome was the change in the standardized antibiotic administration ratio (SAAR) for antibacterial agents for resistant gram-positive infections. We also evaluated the impact on antibiotic utilization. RESULTS: Following the MRSA swab protocol, the SAAR decreased from 1.26 to 1.13 (P < .001; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.16-1.25). After the 72-hour approval process, the SAAR was 0.96 (P < .001; 95% CI, 1.0-1.12). Vancomycin utilization decreased from 138.9 to 125.3 days of therapy per 1,000 patient days following the MRSA swab protocol (P < .001) and to 112.7 (P < .001) following the 72-hour approval protocol. Interrupted time-series analysis identified a similar rate of decline in utilization following the 2 interventions (-0.3 and -0.5; P = .16). Both interventions combined resulted in a significant reduction (-1.5; P < .001). CONCLUSION: Implementation of a pharmacist-driven MRSA nasal-swab ordering protocol, followed by a 72-hour approval protocol, was associated with a significant reduction in the SAAR for antibiotics used in the treatment of resistant gram-positive infections and a reduction in vancomycin utilization. Leveraging the oversight of primary service clinical pharmacists through these protocols proved to be an effective strategy.

When is vancomycin prophylaxis necessary? Risk factors for MRSA surgical site infection.

Background: The 2022 SHEA/IDSA/APIC guidance for surgical site infection (SSI) prevention recommends reserving vancomycin prophylaxis to patients who are methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) colonized. Unfortunately, vancomycin prophylaxis remains common due to the overestimation of MRSA risk and the desire to cover MRSA in patients with certain healthcare-associated characteristics. To optimize vancomycin prophylaxis, we sought to identify risk factors for MRSA SSI. Methods: This was a single-center, case-control study of patients with a postoperative SSI after undergoing a National Healthcare Safety Network operative procedure over eight years. MRSA SSI cases were compared to non-MRSA SSI controls. Forty-two demographic, medical, and surgical characteristics were evaluated. Results: Of the 441 patients included, 23 developed MRSA SSIs (rate = 5.2 per 100 SSIs). In the multivariable model, we identified two independent risk factors for MRSA SSI: a history of MRSA colonization or infection (OR, 9.0 [95% CI, 1.9-29.6]) and hip or knee replacement surgery (OR, 3.8 [95% CI, 1.3-9.9]). Hemodialysis, previous hospitalization, and prolonged hospitalization prior to the procedure had no measurable association with odds of MRSA SSI. Conclusions: Patients with prior MRSA colonization or infection had 9-10 times greater odds of MRSA SSI and patients undergoing hip and knee replacement had 3-4 times greater odds of MRSA SSI. Healthcare-associated characteristics, such as previous hospitalization or hemodialysis, were not associated with MRSA SSI. Our findings support national recommendations to reserve vancomycin prophylaxis for patients who are MRSA colonized, as well as those undergoing hip and knee replacement, in the absence of routine MRSA colonization surveillance.

Rethinking Perioperative Antibiotic Prophylaxis for Low-Risk Head and Neck Procedures.

OBJECTIVE: For true clean-contaminated head and neck procedures, the literature supports ≤24 hours of perioperative antibiotics. However, there are certain otolaryngology procedures with low surgical site infection (SSI) risk for which there is negligible benefit from antibiotic prophylaxis. The objective of this evaluation was to describe antibiotic use and adherence to evidence-based institutional guidelines in low-risk head and neck procedures. METHODS: This was a single-center, retrospective cohort study of patients undergoing low-risk clean-contaminated head and neck procedures wherein antibiotic prophylaxis was not indicated, based on evidence-based institutional guidelines. RESULTS: Among the 291 included patients, perioperative antibiotics were unnecessarily administered in 29% of patients. Among patients who received antibiotics, 76% received preoperative antibiotics and 41% received postoperative antibiotics, for a median duration of 7 days. There were no significant differences in SSIs, mortality, and length of stay for those receiving perioperative antibiotics versus those not receiving perioperative antibiotics. CONCLUSION: These data highlight the need for antibiotic stewardship interventions and partnerships between antibiotic stewardship teams and surgical services.

Microbiology of infection-related complications after transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy.

INTRODUCTION: The objective of this study was to describe the incidence, microbiology, and risk factors related to infectious complications after transrectal prostate biopsies. METHODS: This was a single-center, retrospective cohort study of patients undergoing prostate biopsies. Throughout the study period, the institutional standard for antibiotic prophylaxis was cephalexin and ciprofloxacin. Due to the desire to limit fluoroquinolone use, the ciprofloxacin duration of therapy was reduced from 48 to 24 hours in the middle of the study period. The primary outcome was the incidence of infection-related complications, defined as a urinary tract infection or bacteremia within 30 days post-procedure. RESULTS: A total of 1471 transrectal prostate biopsies were included. All patients received antibiotic prophylaxis, with 86.1% (1268/1472) of patients receiving both ciprofloxacin and cephalexin. The incidence of infection-related complications was 1.6% (24/1471). Four patients experienced bacteremia, all of which were due to E. coli and all of these patients had received antibiotic prophylaxis with an active antibiotic. The use of ciprofloxacin was associated with a lower risk of infection-related complications (odds ratio [OR] 0.20, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.07, 0.55). Bacteriuria within one year prior to the procedure was associated with increased risk of infection-related complications (OR 4.77, 95% CI 1.34, 16.93). Four (0.3%) patients experienced an antibiotic-related adverse event. CONCLUSIONS: We observed a low rate of infection-related complications and antibiotic-related adverse events in the setting of antibiotic prophylaxis with ciprofloxacin and cephalexin for 24 hours, without pre-procedure rectal culture screening. Investigation into procedural or host factors may uncover opportunities to further reduce infection-related complications.