ABSTRACT
Objective: Audit and feedback is an antimicrobial stewardship (AMS) strategy, with the potential to also optimize antimicrobial use in non-audited patients. This study aimed to determine whether audit and feedback reduce antimicrobial use in both audited and non-audited patients. Design: Before-after trial with a 1-year intervention period and 2.5-year historical cohort. Setting: 750-bed community hospital in the Netherlands. Patients: All patients admitted to the urology wards during the 3.5-year study period were observed. Patients were classified as using antimicrobials if any antimicrobial was used for therapeutic reasons. Patients using antimicrobials prophylactically were excluded from measurements. Intervention: The AMS team provided audit and feedback on antimicrobial use for patients using antimicrobials for 2 days. Retrospectively, antimicrobial use and length of stay (LOS) were compared with the historical cohort. Results: Audits modified antimicrobial treatment in 52.8% of the cases. De-escalating, stopping, and switching from intravenous to oral treatment accounted for 72% of these modifications. Compared to patients from the cohort, who also used antimicrobials for 2 days, antimicrobial use decreased from 14.21 DDD/patient (95% CI, 13.08-15.34) to 11.45 DDD/patient (95% CI, 8.26-14.64; P = .047) for audited patients. Furthermore, mean LOS decreased from 7.42 days (95% CI, 6.79-8.06) to 6.13 days (95% CI, 5.38-6.89; P = .031). However, looking at all patients admitted to the urology wards, the percentage of patients using antimicrobials and total antimicrobial use remained unchanged. Conclusions: Audit and feedback reduce antimicrobial use and LOS, but only for audited patients. Positive effects are not automatically transferred to patients for whom no audits have been performed.
ABSTRACT
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the urodynamic data before and 6 months after implantation of sacral neuromodulation (SNM, an established treatment for voiding dysfunction, including refractory urge urinary incontinence, UI) and to assess the correlation between the urodynamic data and clinical efficacy in patients with UI. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In all, 111 patients with a >50% reduction in UI symptoms during a percutaneous nerve evaluation test qualified for surgical implantation of SNM. Patients were categorized in two subgroups, i.e. those with UI with or without confirmed detrusor overactivity (DO) at baseline. At the 6-month follow-up all patients had a second urodynamic investigation, with the stimulator switched on. RESULTS: At baseline, there was urodynamically confirmed DO in 67 patients, while 44 showed no DO. A review of filling cystometry variables showed a statistically significant improvement in bladder volumes at first sensation of filling (FSF) and at maximum fill volume (MFV) before voiding for both UI subgroups, compared with baseline. In 51% of the patients with UI and DO at baseline, the DO resolved during the follow-up. However, those patients were no more clinically successful than those who still had DO (P = 0.73). At the 6-month follow-up, 55 of 84 implanted patients showed clinical benefit, having a >or=50% improvement in primary voiding diary variables. Patients with UI but no DO had a higher rate of clinical success (73%) than patients with UI and DO (61%), but the difference was not statistically significant. CONCLUSION: These urodynamic results show a statistically significant improvement in FSF and MFV in patients with UI with or with no DO after SNM. Although there was a urodynamic and clinical improvement in both groups, patients with UI but no DO are at least as successful as patients with UI and DO. Therefore in patients with UI, DO should not be a prerequisite selection criterion for using SNM.
