Office Cystoscopy Urinary Tract Infection Rate and Cost before and after Implementing New Handling and Storage Practices. Issue 1 (27th January 2021)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Roth, Vincent; Espino-Grosso, Pedro; Henriksen, Carl H.; Canales, Benjamin K.
• Is Part Of: Urology practice. Volume 8:Issue 1(2021)
• Page Start: 23
• Page End: 29
• Publication Date: 2021-01-27
• Subjects: cystoscopy -- antibiotic prophylaxis -- disinfection
• DOI: 10.1097/UPJ.0000000000000162
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 2352-0779

Abstract

Abstract: Introduction: Based on 2010 American Urological Association recommendations our practice transitioned from sterile to high level disinfection flexible cystoscope reprocessing and from sterile to clean handling practices. We examined symptomatic urinary tract infection rate and cost before and after policy implementation. Methods: We retrospectively reviewed 30-day outcomes following 1, 888 simple cystoscopy encounters that occurred from 2007 to 2010 (sterile, 905) and 2012 to 2015 (high level disinfection, 983) at the Malcom Randall Veterans Affairs Medical Center. We excluded veterans who had recent instrumentation, active or recent urinary tract infection, performed intermittent catheterization, or had complicated cystoscopy (dilation, biopsy etc). Patient/procedural factors and cost were collected and compared between groups. Results: Both cohorts had similar age (mean 68 years), race (Caucasian, 82%), comorbidities (cancer history, 62%; diabetes mellitus, 36%; tobacco use, 24.5%), and cystoscopy procedural indications (cancer surveillance, 50%; hematuria, 34%). Urological complication rate was low between groups (1.43%) with no significant difference in symptomatic urinary tract infection events (0.99% sterile vs 0.51% high level disinfection, p=0.29) or unplanned clinic/emergency department visits (0.66% sterile vs 0.71% high level disinfection, p=0.91). Roughly 95% of the cohorts were given prophylactic antibiotics, most commonly fluoroquinolones (91%). High level disinfection was $82 cheaper per procedure than sterile with most cost disparity stemming from reprocessing. Total savings for our facility by switching to high level disinfection was more than $100, 000 annually. Conclusions: In an older, morbid veteran population receiving centralized care and prophylactic antibiotics we found no difference in symptomatic urinary tract infection or unplanned visits between sterile or high level disinfection techniques. However, high level disinfection was associated with a sizable cost savings, improved clinic workflow, and reduced use of personal protective equipment.