Cost benefit micro-analysis of performing urine cultures as a mean to reduce post-flexible cystoscopy urosepsis: a comparative study between two centres.

IF 1.9 3区 医学 Q4 ANDROLOGY
Translational andrology and urology Pub Date : 2025-03-30 Epub Date: 2025-03-26 DOI:10.21037/tau-24-417
Adib Rahman, Matthew Qiu, Kapilan Ravichandran, Devang Desai
{"title":"Cost benefit micro-analysis of performing urine cultures as a mean to reduce post-flexible cystoscopy urosepsis: a comparative study between two centres.","authors":"Adib Rahman, Matthew Qiu, Kapilan Ravichandran, Devang Desai","doi":"10.21037/tau-24-417","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>In Australia, flexible cystoscopy is a key diagnostic tool in urology, employed to manage various conditions. However, it carries risks like urinary tract infections and urosepsis, which lead to significant healthcare expenses. This study evaluates the cost-effectiveness of pre-procedure urine cultures to prevent post-cystoscopy urosepsis.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A retrospective analysis of data from regional Toowoomba Base Hospital and metropolitan Gold Coast University Hospital was conducted to assess the efficacy of urine cultures in reducing urosepsis following flexible cystoscopy. The study reviewed patient records, analysing both the incidence of post-procedure urosepsis and the associated economic impact.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The incidence of post-procedure urosepsis was found to be exceptionally low at 0.03%. Comparative analysis showed no significant reduction in urosepsis rates with the use of pre-procedure urine cultures (P=0.93). The financial analysis highlighted that the regional centre, which conducted urine cultures, incurred costs $ 26.14 per patient greater compared to the metropolitan centre that did not perform these cultures.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The study indicates that the low incidence of urosepsis does not justify the routine use of pre-operative urine cultures, given the substantial costs involved. These findings support current guidelines that do not recommend routine pre-procedure cultures for cystoscopy due to lack of evidence of benefit.</p>","PeriodicalId":23270,"journal":{"name":"Translational andrology and urology","volume":"14 3","pages":"707-714"},"PeriodicalIF":1.9000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11986491/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Translational andrology and urology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.21037/tau-24-417","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/3/26 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"ANDROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: In Australia, flexible cystoscopy is a key diagnostic tool in urology, employed to manage various conditions. However, it carries risks like urinary tract infections and urosepsis, which lead to significant healthcare expenses. This study evaluates the cost-effectiveness of pre-procedure urine cultures to prevent post-cystoscopy urosepsis.

Methods: A retrospective analysis of data from regional Toowoomba Base Hospital and metropolitan Gold Coast University Hospital was conducted to assess the efficacy of urine cultures in reducing urosepsis following flexible cystoscopy. The study reviewed patient records, analysing both the incidence of post-procedure urosepsis and the associated economic impact.

Results: The incidence of post-procedure urosepsis was found to be exceptionally low at 0.03%. Comparative analysis showed no significant reduction in urosepsis rates with the use of pre-procedure urine cultures (P=0.93). The financial analysis highlighted that the regional centre, which conducted urine cultures, incurred costs $ 26.14 per patient greater compared to the metropolitan centre that did not perform these cultures.

Conclusions: The study indicates that the low incidence of urosepsis does not justify the routine use of pre-operative urine cultures, given the substantial costs involved. These findings support current guidelines that do not recommend routine pre-procedure cultures for cystoscopy due to lack of evidence of benefit.

成本效益微观分析执行尿液培养的手段,以减少后柔性膀胱镜尿脓毒症:两个中心之间的比较研究。
背景:在澳大利亚,柔性膀胱镜检查是泌尿外科的关键诊断工具,用于治疗各种疾病。然而,它会带来尿路感染和尿脓毒症等风险,从而导致大量的医疗费用。本研究评估术前尿培养预防膀胱镜检查后尿脓毒症的成本效益。方法:回顾性分析地区Toowoomba基地医院和大都市黄金海岸大学医院的数据,以评估尿培养在减少柔性膀胱镜检查后尿脓毒症的疗效。该研究回顾了患者记录,分析了手术后尿脓毒症的发生率和相关的经济影响。结果:术后尿脓毒症发生率极低,仅为0.03%。对比分析显示,术前尿培养没有显著降低尿脓毒症发生率(P=0.93)。财务分析强调,与不进行尿液培养的大都会中心相比,进行尿液培养的区域中心每名患者的费用高出26.14美元。结论:该研究表明,考虑到所涉及的大量费用,尿脓毒症的低发病率并不能证明术前常规使用尿培养是合理的。这些发现支持目前的指南,由于缺乏有益的证据,不建议常规术前膀胱镜培养。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.10
自引率
5.00%
发文量
80
期刊介绍: ranslational Andrology and Urology (Print ISSN 2223-4683; Online ISSN 2223-4691; Transl Androl Urol; TAU) is an open access, peer-reviewed, bi-monthly journal (quarterly published from Mar.2012 - Dec. 2014). The main focus of the journal is to describe new findings in the field of translational research of Andrology and Urology, provides current and practical information on basic research and clinical investigations of Andrology and Urology. Specific areas of interest include, but not limited to, molecular study, pathology, biology and technical advances related to andrology and urology. Topics cover range from evaluation, prevention, diagnosis, therapy, prognosis, rehabilitation and future challenges to urology and andrology. Contributions pertinent to urology and andrology are also included from related fields such as public health, basic sciences, education, sociology, and nursing.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信