Pd07-11 Neuro-Urological Device Biofilms Harbor Unique Microbe-Metabolite Interaction Networks in Infected and Uninfected States, and Biofilm Reconstitution in Vitro Differs by Bacterial Strain and Device Material Type

You have accessJournal of UrologyUrodynamics/Lower Urinary Tract Dysfunction/Female Pelvic Medicine: Neurogenic Voiding Dysfunction (PD07)1 May 2024PD07-11 NEURO-UROLOGICAL DEVICE BIOFILMS HARBOR UNIQUE MICROBE-METABOLITE INTERACTION NETWORKS IN INFECTED AND UNINFECTED STATES, AND BIOFILM RECONSTITUTION IN VITRO DIFFERS BY BACTERIAL STRAIN AND DEVICE MATERIAL TYPE Glenn Werneburg, Daniel Hettel, Howard Goldman, Sandip Vasavada, and Aaron Miller Glenn WerneburgGlenn Werneburg , Daniel HettelDaniel Hettel , Howard GoldmanHoward Goldman , Sandip VasavadaSandip Vasavada , and Aaron MillerAaron Miller View All Author Informationhttps://doi.org/10.1097/01.JU.0001008552.16893.70.11AboutPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints ShareFacebookLinked InTwitterEmail Abstract INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVE: Device-associated infection is a devastating phenomenon that spans medical specialties including neuro-urology. We sought to characterize microbial biofilms from different device types used in neuro-urology including sacral neuromodulation (SNM) devices, artificial urinary sphincters (AUS), penile prostheses (IPP), and ureteral stents. METHODS: Patients 18 years and older scheduled for neuro-urological device removal or revision were identified. Devices and controls were swabbed and subjected to next generation sequencing, metabolomics, and culture-based approaches. Strains isolated from devices were then co-incubated with a library of medical material types in a CDC continuous flow stir tank bioreactor, which is an environment mimicking human tissue with a device present. Biofilm deposition on materials in the bioreactor was quantitated and compared by strain and material type. RESULTS: 115 devices were included. Biofilm microbial counts (p<0.001) and diversity (p=0.024) differed by device type (SNM, AUS, IPP, stent). Microbiota present on devices was distinct from that of the perineum, rectum, or urine in diversity and microbial relative abundance (p<0.01). Escherichia/Shigella and Staphylococcus and Sphingobium genera were common to all four device types. Distinct microbe-metabolite interaction networks were identified in presence and absence of infection (Figure 1). The antibiotic resistance genes sul2 (sulfonamide resistance), ampC (penicillin resistance), and rpoB (rifampin resistance) were detected in biofilms from each device type. All 21 isolated strains analyzed reconstituted biofilm in the bioreactor, and biofilm deposition differed by both strain and material type on plate count assays and scanning electron microscopy. CONCLUSIONS: Implanted urological devices harbor unique microbial and metabolite compositions. Microbe-metabolite interaction networks differed in the presence versus absence of infection. The methods and results of this study set the groundwork for investigation of new materials and coatings, and bacterial competition strategies designed to reduce the risk of device-associated infection, within and outside urology. Download PPT Source of Funding: This research was funded in part by the SUFU Foundation Neuromodulation grant © 2024 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.FiguresReferencesRelatedDetails Volume 211Issue 5SMay 2024Page: e171 Advertisement Copyright & Permissions© 2024 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.Metrics Author Information Glenn Werneburg More articles by this author Daniel Hettel More articles by this author Howard Goldman More articles by this author Sandip Vasavada More articles by this author Aaron Miller More articles by this author Expand All Advertisement PDF downloadLoading ...