Elimination of urine culture screening prior to elective joint arthroplasty

Clinical question: What is the clinical impact of implementing a policy to no longer process urine specimens for perioperative screening in patients undergoing elective joint arthroplasty (EJA)?

Background: Despite prior studies indicating the lack of clinical benefit, preoperative urine cultures are still frequently obtained in patients undergoing EJA in attempts to reduce the risk of periprosthetic joint infections (PJI).

Study Design: Time series analysis.

Setting: Holland Orthopedic and Arthritic Center (HOAC) of Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre.

Synopsis: After a multidisciplinary meeting, obtaining routine urine culture screening was removed from the preoperative order set. A time series analysis was performed to review the frequency of screening urine cultures obtained and processed, the number of patients treated for asymptomatic bacteriuria (ASB), and the incidence of PJI before and after the new policy was implemented. After the policy change, only 129 screening urine cultures were obtained prior to 1,891 EJAs (7 per 100 EJA; 95% CI 6-8; P less than .0001) which is a drastic decrease from the 3,069 screening urine cultures obtained prior to 3,523 EJAs (87 per 100 EJA; 95% CI, 86-88) before the policy change. Prior to the policy change, of the 352 positive urine cultures, 43 received perioperative treatment for ASB, and PJI incidence was 1/3523 (0.03%; 95% CI, 0.001-02). After the policy change, no perioperative antibiotics were prescribed for ASB, and PJI rate did not significantly change at 3/1891 (0.2%; 95% CI, 0.05-0.5; P = .1).

The study was limited by its low power to detect for small differences in rates because of its small PJI rate occurrence.

Bottom Line: A multidisciplinary approach in eliminating routine urine screening prior to EJA resulted in a decrease of urine cultures obtained and a decrease in treatment for asymptomatic bacteriuria, with no significant change in PJI rate. This change in clinical practice is supported by current evidence and has a significant impact on cost savings.

References: Lamb MJ, Baillie L, Pajak D, et al. “Elimination of Screening Urine Cultures Prior to Elective Joint Arthroplasty.”

Dr. Libot is assistant professor in the division of hospital medicine, Loyola University Chicago, Maywood, Ill.

Clinical question: What is the clinical impact of implementing a policy to no longer process urine specimens for perioperative screening in patients undergoing elective joint arthroplasty (EJA)?

Background: Despite prior studies indicating the lack of clinical benefit, preoperative urine cultures are still frequently obtained in patients undergoing EJA in attempts to reduce the risk of periprosthetic joint infections (PJI).

Study Design: Time series analysis.

Setting: Holland Orthopedic and Arthritic Center (HOAC) of Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre.

Synopsis: After a multidisciplinary meeting, obtaining routine urine culture screening was removed from the preoperative order set. A time series analysis was performed to review the frequency of screening urine cultures obtained and processed, the number of patients treated for asymptomatic bacteriuria (ASB), and the incidence of PJI before and after the new policy was implemented. After the policy change, only 129 screening urine cultures were obtained prior to 1,891 EJAs (7 per 100 EJA; 95% CI 6-8; P less than .0001) which is a drastic decrease from the 3,069 screening urine cultures obtained prior to 3,523 EJAs (87 per 100 EJA; 95% CI, 86-88) before the policy change. Prior to the policy change, of the 352 positive urine cultures, 43 received perioperative treatment for ASB, and PJI incidence was 1/3523 (0.03%; 95% CI, 0.001-02). After the policy change, no perioperative antibiotics were prescribed for ASB, and PJI rate did not significantly change at 3/1891 (0.2%; 95% CI, 0.05-0.5; P = .1).

The study was limited by its low power to detect for small differences in rates because of its small PJI rate occurrence.

Bottom Line: A multidisciplinary approach in eliminating routine urine screening prior to EJA resulted in a decrease of urine cultures obtained and a decrease in treatment for asymptomatic bacteriuria, with no significant change in PJI rate. This change in clinical practice is supported by current evidence and has a significant impact on cost savings.

References: Lamb MJ, Baillie L, Pajak D, et al. “Elimination of Screening Urine Cultures Prior to Elective Joint Arthroplasty.”

Dr. Libot is assistant professor in the division of hospital medicine, Loyola University Chicago, Maywood, Ill.

Clinical question: What is the clinical impact of implementing a policy to no longer process urine specimens for perioperative screening in patients undergoing elective joint arthroplasty (EJA)?

Background: Despite prior studies indicating the lack of clinical benefit, preoperative urine cultures are still frequently obtained in patients undergoing EJA in attempts to reduce the risk of periprosthetic joint infections (PJI).

Study Design: Time series analysis.

Setting: Holland Orthopedic and Arthritic Center (HOAC) of Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre.

Synopsis: After a multidisciplinary meeting, obtaining routine urine culture screening was removed from the preoperative order set. A time series analysis was performed to review the frequency of screening urine cultures obtained and processed, the number of patients treated for asymptomatic bacteriuria (ASB), and the incidence of PJI before and after the new policy was implemented. After the policy change, only 129 screening urine cultures were obtained prior to 1,891 EJAs (7 per 100 EJA; 95% CI 6-8; P less than .0001) which is a drastic decrease from the 3,069 screening urine cultures obtained prior to 3,523 EJAs (87 per 100 EJA; 95% CI, 86-88) before the policy change. Prior to the policy change, of the 352 positive urine cultures, 43 received perioperative treatment for ASB, and PJI incidence was 1/3523 (0.03%; 95% CI, 0.001-02). After the policy change, no perioperative antibiotics were prescribed for ASB, and PJI rate did not significantly change at 3/1891 (0.2%; 95% CI, 0.05-0.5; P = .1).

The study was limited by its low power to detect for small differences in rates because of its small PJI rate occurrence.

Bottom Line: A multidisciplinary approach in eliminating routine urine screening prior to EJA resulted in a decrease of urine cultures obtained and a decrease in treatment for asymptomatic bacteriuria, with no significant change in PJI rate. This change in clinical practice is supported by current evidence and has a significant impact on cost savings.

References: Lamb MJ, Baillie L, Pajak D, et al. “Elimination of Screening Urine Cultures Prior to Elective Joint Arthroplasty.”

Dr. Libot is assistant professor in the division of hospital medicine, Loyola University Chicago, Maywood, Ill.