Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-vdxz6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-30T20:22:53.338Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Urinary Tract Infection Following Instrumentation for Urodynamic Testing

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 June 2016

Richard J. Hamill ,
Charles E. Wright ,
Nita Andres  and
Maureen A. Koza
Richard J. Hamill*
Affiliation:
Sections of Infection Control and Infectious Diseases, Veterans Administration Medical Center, andBaylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas
Charles E. Wright
Affiliation:
Sections of Infection Control and Infectious Diseases, Veterans Administration Medical Center, andBaylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas
Nita Andres
Affiliation:
Sections of Infection Control and Infectious Diseases, Veterans Administration Medical Center, andBaylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas
Maureen A. Koza
Affiliation:
Sections of Infection Control and Infectious Diseases, Veterans Administration Medical Center, andBaylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas
*
Section of Infectious Diseases, V.A. Medical Center (151B), 2002 Holcombe Blvd. Houston, TX 77211
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

After identifying a temporal cluster of urinary tract infections in patients who had undergone urodynamic procedures, we examined the techniques within the urodynamic laboratory and retrospectively reviewed charts of all 155 patients tested in the previous six months. The rate of acquired urinary tract infections was 18.7%. Risk factors for infection included undergoing cystometrograms and being subject to the first procedure performed in a day. Technical errors in the performance of the urodynamic studies included failure to completely disassemble the apparatus upon completion of a procedure, failure to use sterile components, and lapses in aseptic technique. Bacteria implicated in the outbreak were isolated from tubing, transducers, and flush solutions. After the institution of appropriate technique, all patients tested in the subsequent six months were followed. The rate of acquired urinary tract infection dropped to 5%. Urodynamic apparatus should be completely disassembled following the completion of a procedure; reassembly using sterile components should occur immediately prior to the next procedure; aseptic technique should be maintained; and patients should undergo routine urine screening before a procedure. Surveillance of urodynamic procedures may reveal correctable flaws in technique.

Type
Original Articles
Information
Infection Control & Hospital Epidemiology , Volume 10 , Issue 1 , January 1989 , pp. 26 - 32
Copyright
Copyright © The Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America 1989

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1.Bergman, A, McCarthy, TA: Antibiotic prophylaxis after instrumentation for urodynamic testing. Br J Urol. 1983;55:508–569.Google Scholar
2.Powell, PH, Lewis, P, Shepherd, AM, et al: The morbidity of urodynamic investigations, in Proceedings of the XIth Annual Meeting, International Continence Society Lund, Sweden. 1981, pp 140–141.Google Scholar
3.Walter, S. Veilsgaard, K: Diagnostic catheterisation and bacteriuria in women with urinary incontinence. Br J Urol. 1978;50:106–108.Google Scholar
4.Glenister, H, Holton, J, Teall, A: Urinary tract pressure recording equipment as a source of infection. J Hosp Infect. 1985;6:224–226.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
5.Talbot, GH, Doorley, M, Banner, MP: Urosepsis associated with vid-eourodynamic studies. Arn J Infect Cowry. 1984;12:260–270.Google Scholar
6.Simmons, B: Guidelines for prevention of infections related to intravasculai pressure-monitoring systems. Inject Control. 1982;3:68–72.Google Scholar
7.Maki, DG: Growth properties of microorganisms in infusion fluids and methods of detection, in Phillips, Meers, PD, D'Arcy, PF (eds): Microbiologic Hazard, of Intravenous Therapy. Lancaster, England, MTP Press, 1977, p 13.Google Scholar
8.Maki, DG, Hassemer, CA: Endemic rate of fluid contamination and related septicemia in arterial pressure monitoring. Am J Med. 1981;70:733–738.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
9.Shinozaki, T, Deane, RS, Maznzan, JE, et al: Bacterial contamination of arterial lines: A prospective study. JAMA. 1983;249:223–225.Google Scholar
10.Tanaglio, EA, Miller, ER, Lyon, RP, et al: Spastic striated external-sphincter araz urinary tract infection in girls. Br J Urol. 1971;43:69–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
11.Nergardh, A. Boreus, LO, Holme, T: The inhibitory effect of coli-endotoxin on alpha-adrenergic receptor function in the lower urinary tract. Scared J Urol Nephrol. 1977;11:219–224.Google Scholar