Recurrent Lower Urinary Tract Infections in Females

Variant: 1 Recurrent lower urinary tract infections in a female. Uncomplicated with no underlying risk factors.

Procedure	Appropriateness Category	Relative Radiation Level
US kidneys and bladder retroperitoneal	Usually Not Appropriate	O
Fluoroscopy voiding cystourethrography	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢
Radiography abdomen	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢
Fluoroscopy contrast enema	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢☢
Fluoroscopy cystography	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢☢
Radiography intravenous urography	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢☢
MRI abdomen and pelvis without and with IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	O
MRI abdomen and pelvis without IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	O
MRU without and with IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	O
CT abdomen and pelvis with IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢☢
CT abdomen and pelvis without IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢☢
CT abdomen and pelvis without and with IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢☢☢
CT pelvis with bladder contrast (CT cystography)	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢☢☢
CTU without and with IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢☢☢

Variant: 2 Recurrent lower urinary tract infections in a female. Complicated, or patients who are nonresponders to conventional therapy, develop frequent reinfections or relapses, or have known underlying risk factors.

Procedure	Appropriateness Category	Relative Radiation Level
MRU without and with IV contrast	Usually Appropriate	O
CTU without and with IV contrast	Usually Appropriate	☢☢☢☢
US kidneys and bladder retroperitoneal	May Be Appropriate	O
Fluoroscopy voiding cystourethrography	May Be Appropriate	☢☢
Fluoroscopy cystography	May Be Appropriate	☢☢☢
MRI abdomen and pelvis without and with IV contrast	May Be Appropriate	O
MRI abdomen and pelvis without IV contrast	May Be Appropriate	O
CT abdomen and pelvis with IV contrast	May Be Appropriate	☢☢☢
CT abdomen and pelvis without IV contrast	May Be Appropriate	☢☢☢
CT abdomen and pelvis without and with IV contrast	May Be Appropriate	☢☢☢☢
CT pelvis with bladder contrast (CT cystography)	May Be Appropriate	☢☢☢☢
Fluoroscopy urethrography double balloon	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢
Radiography abdomen	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢
Fluoroscopy contrast enema	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢☢
Radiography intravenous urography	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢☢

Panel Members

Aradhana M. Venkatesan, MD^a; Aytekin Oto, MD^b; Brian C. Allen, MD^c; Oguz Akin, MD^d; Lauren F. Alexander, MD^e; Jaron Chong, MD^f; Adam T. Froemming, MD^g; Pat F. Fulgham, MD^h; Stanley Goldfarb, MDⁱ; Lori Mankowski Gettle, MD, MBA^j; Jodi K. Maranchie, MD^k; Bhavik N. Patel, MD, MBA^l; Nicola Schieda, MD^m; David M. Schuster, MDⁿ; Baris Turkbey, MD^o; Mark E. Lockhart, MD, MPH^p.

Summary of Literature Review

Introduction/Background

Special Imaging Considerations

Discussion of Procedures by Variant

Variant 1: Recurrent lower urinary tract infections in a female. Uncomplicated with no underlying risk factors.

Variant 1: Recurrent lower urinary tract infections in a female. Uncomplicated with no underlying risk factors.
A. CT abdomen and pelvis

Variant 1: Recurrent lower urinary tract infections in a female. Uncomplicated with no underlying risk factors.
B. CT Pelvis with Bladder Contrast (CT Cystography)

Variant 1: Recurrent lower urinary tract infections in a female. Uncomplicated with no underlying risk factors.
C. CTU

Variant 1: Recurrent lower urinary tract infections in a female. Uncomplicated with no underlying risk factors.
D. Fluoroscopy Contrast Enema

Variant 1: Recurrent lower urinary tract infections in a female. Uncomplicated with no underlying risk factors.
E. Fluoroscopy Cystography

Variant 1: Recurrent lower urinary tract infections in a female. Uncomplicated with no underlying risk factors.
F. Fluoroscopy Voiding Cystourethrography

Variant 1: Recurrent lower urinary tract infections in a female. Uncomplicated with no underlying risk factors.
G. MRI Abdomen and Pelvis

Variant 1: Recurrent lower urinary tract infections in a female. Uncomplicated with no underlying risk factors.
H. MRU

Variant 1: Recurrent lower urinary tract infections in a female. Uncomplicated with no underlying risk factors.
I. Radiography Abdomen

Variant 1: Recurrent lower urinary tract infections in a female. Uncomplicated with no underlying risk factors.
J. Radiography Intravenous Urography

Variant 1: Recurrent lower urinary tract infections in a female. Uncomplicated with no underlying risk factors.
K. US Kidneys and Bladder Retroperitoneal

Variant 2: Recurrent lower urinary tract infections in a female. Complicated, or patients who are nonresponders to conventional therapy, develop frequent reinfections or relapses, or have known underlying risk factors.

Summary of Highlights

Supporting Documents

The evidence table, literature search, and appendix for this topic are available at https://acsearch.acr.org/list. The appendix includes the strength of evidence assessment and the final rating round tabulations for each recommendation.

For additional information on the Appropriateness Criteria methodology and other supporting documents, please go to the ACR website at https://www.acr.org/Clinical-Resources/Clinical-Tools-and-Reference/Appropriateness-Criteria.

Appropriateness Category Names and Definitions

Appropriateness Category Name	Appropriateness Rating	Appropriateness Category Definition
Usually Appropriate	7, 8, or 9	The imaging procedure or treatment is indicated in the specified clinical scenarios at a favorable risk-benefit ratio for patients.
May Be Appropriate	4, 5, or 6	The imaging procedure or treatment may be indicated in the specified clinical scenarios as an alternative to imaging procedures or treatments with a more favorable risk-benefit ratio, or the risk-benefit ratio for patients is equivocal.
May Be Appropriate (Disagreement)	5	The individual ratings are too dispersed from the panel median. The different label provides transparency regarding the panel’s recommendation. “May be appropriate” is the rating category and a rating of 5 is assigned.
Usually Not Appropriate	1, 2, or 3	The imaging procedure or treatment is unlikely to be indicated in the specified clinical scenarios, or the risk-benefit ratio for patients is likely to be unfavorable.

Relative Radiation Level Information

Potential adverse health effects associated with radiation exposure are an important factor to consider when selecting the appropriate imaging procedure. Because there is a wide range of radiation exposures associated with different diagnostic procedures, a relative radiation level (RRL) indication has been included for each imaging examination. The RRLs are based on effective dose, which is a radiation dose quantity that is used to estimate population total radiation risk associated with an imaging procedure. Patients in the pediatric age group are at inherently higher risk from exposure, because of both organ sensitivity and longer life expectancy (relevant to the long latency that appears to accompany radiation exposure). For these reasons, the RRL dose estimate ranges for pediatric examinations are lower as compared with those specified for adults (see Table below). Additional information regarding radiation dose assessment for imaging examinations can be found in the ACR Appropriateness Criteria^® Radiation Dose Assessment Introduction document.

Relative Radiation Level Designations
Relative Radiation Level*	Adult Effective Dose Estimate Range	Pediatric Effective Dose Estimate Range
O	0 mSv	0 mSv
☢	<0.1 mSv	<0.03 mSv
☢☢	0.1-1 mSv	0.03-0.3 mSv
☢☢☢	1-10 mSv	0.3-3 mSv
☢☢☢☢	10-30 mSv	3-10 mSv
☢☢☢☢☢	30-100 mSv	10-30 mSv
*RRL assignments for some of the examinations cannot be made, because the actual patient doses in these procedures vary as a function of a number of factors (e.g., region of the body exposed to ionizing radiation, the imaging guidance that is used). The RRLs for these examinations are designated as “Varies.”

References

-2.	Griebling TL. Urologic diseases in America project: trends in resource use for urinary tract infections in women. J Urol. 2005;173(4):1281-1287.
-2.	Foxman B. Epidemiology of urinary tract infections: incidence, morbidity, and economic costs. Dis Mon. 2003;49(2):53-70.
-2.	Wagenlehner FM, Weidner W, Naber KG. An update on uncomplicated urinary tract infections in women. Curr Opin Urol. 2009;19(4):368-374.
-2.	Hickling DR, Nitti VW. Management of recurrent urinary tract infections in healthy adult women. Rev Urol. 2013;15(2):41-48.
-2.	Dason S, Dason JT, Kapoor A. Guidelines for the diagnosis and management of recurrent urinary tract infection in women. Can Urol Assoc J. 2011;5(5):316-322.
-2.	Sheffield JS, Cunningham FG. Urinary tract infection in women. Obstet Gynecol. 2005;106(5 Pt 1):1085-1092.
-2.	Gupta K, Hooton TM, Naber KG, et al. International clinical practice guidelines for the treatment of acute uncomplicated cystitis and pyelonephritis in women: A 2010 update by the Infectious Diseases Society of America and the European Society for Microbiology and Infectious Diseases. [Review]. Clinical Infectious Diseases. 52(5):e103-20, 2011 Mar 01.
-2.	Glover M, Moreira CG, Sperandio V, Zimmern P. Recurrent urinary tract infections in healthy and nonpregnant women. Urological Science. 25(1):1-8, 2014 Mar.
-2.	Arnold JJ, Hehn LE, Klein DA. Common Questions About Recurrent Urinary Tract Infections in Women. [Review]. American Family Physician. 93(7):560-9, 2016 Apr 01.
-2.	Beerepoot M, Geerlings S. Non-Antibiotic Prophylaxis for Urinary Tract Infections. [Review]. Pathogens. 5(2), 2016 Apr 16.
-2.	Hooton TM, Vecchio M, Iroz A, et al. Effect of Increased Daily Water Intake in Premenopausal Women With Recurrent Urinary Tract Infections: A Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA Intern Med. 178(11):1509-1515, 2018 11 01.
-1.	Haylen BT, Lee J, Husselbee S, Law M, Zhou J. Recurrent urinary tract infections in women with symptoms of pelvic floor dysfunction. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct. 2009;20(7):837-842.
0.	Raz R, Gennesin Y, Wasser J, et al. Recurrent urinary tract infections in postmenopausal women. Clinical Infectious Diseases. 30(1):152-6, 2000 Jan.
1.	Kodner CM, Thomas Gupton EK. Recurrent urinary tract infections in women: diagnosis and management. Am Fam Physician. 2010 Sep 15;82(6):638-43.
2.	Fenwick EA, Briggs AH, Hawke CI. Management of urinary tract infection in general practice: a cost-effectiveness analysis. Br J Gen Pract. 2000;50(457):635-639.
3.	van Haarst EP, van Andel G, Heldeweg EA, Schlatmann TJ, van der Horst HJ. Evaluation of the diagnostic workup in young women referred for recurrent lower urinary tract infections. Urology. 2001;57(6):1068-1072.
4.	Anger J, Lee U, Ackerman AL, et al. Recurrent Uncomplicated Urinary Tract Infections in Women: AUA/CUA/SUFU Guideline. Journal of Urology. 202(2):282-289, 2019 08.
5.	Nikolaidis P, Dogra VS, Goldfarb S, et al. ACR Appropriateness Criteria R Acute Pyelonephritis. Journal of the American College of Radiology. 15(11S):S232-S239, 2018 Nov.
6.	Tonolini M, Bianco R. Multidetector CT cystography for imaging colovesical fistulas and iatrogenic bladder leaks. Insights Imaging. 2012 Apr;3(2):181-7.
7.	Fontanilla T, Minaya J, Cortes C, et al. Acute complicated pyelonephritis: contrast-enhanced ultrasound. Abdom Imaging. 2012;37(4):639-646.
8.	Granata A, Andrulli S, Fiorini F, et al. Diagnosis of acute pyelonephritis by contrast-enhanced ultrasonography in kidney transplant patients. Nephrol Dial Transplant. 2011;26(2):715-720.
9.	Mitterberger M, Pinggera GM, Colleselli D, et al. Acute pyelonephritis: comparison of diagnosis with computed tomography and contrast-enhanced ultrasonography. BJU Int. 2008; 101(3):341-344.
10.	Lawrentschuk N, Ooi J, Pang A, Naidu KS, Bolton DM. Cystoscopy in women with recurrent urinary tract infection. Int J Urol. 2006;13(4):350-353.
11.	Hooton TM. Recurrent urinary tract infection in women. Int J Antimicrob Agents. 2001 Apr;17(4):259-68.
12.	Neal DE. Complicated urinary tract infections. Urol Clin North Am. 2008 Feb;35(1):13-22; v.
13.	Fowler JE, Pulaski ET. Excretory urography, cystography, and cystoscopy in the evaluation of women with urinary-tract infection: a prospective study. N Engl J Med. 1981 Feb 19;304(8):462-5.
14.	Silverman SG, Leyendecker JR, Amis ES, Jr. What is the current role of CT urography and MR urography in the evaluation of the urinary tract? Radiology. 2009;250(2):309-323.
15.	Khati NJ, Sondel Lewis N, Frazier AA, Obias V, Zeman RK, Hill MC. CT of acute perianal abscesses and infected fistulae: a pictorial essay. Emerg Radiol. 2015 Jun;22(3):329-35.
16.	Morey AF, Brandes S, Dugi DD 3rd, et al. Urotrauma: AUA guideline. Journal of Urology. 192(2):327-35, 2014 Aug.J Urol. 192(2):327-35, 2014 Aug.
17.	Dillman JR, Caoili EM, Cohan RH. Multi-detector CT urography: a one-stop renal and urinary tract imaging modality. Abdom Imaging. 2007;32(4):519-529.
18.	Zeikus E, Sura G, Hindman N, Fielding JR. Tumors of Renal Collecting Systems, Renal Pelvis, and Ureters: Role of MR Imaging and MR Urography Versus Computed Tomography Urography. [Review]. Magnetic Resonance Imaging Clinics of North America. 27(1):15-32, 2019 Feb.Magn Reson Imaging Clin N Am. 27(1):15-32, 2019 Feb.
19.	Kavanagh D, Neary P, Dodd JD, Sheahan KM, O'Donoghue D, Hyland JM. Diagnosis and treatment of enterovesical fistulae. Colorectal Dis. 2005;7(3):286-291.
20.	Yu NC, Raman SS, Patel M, Barbaric Z. Fistulas of the genitourinary tract: a radiologic review. [Review] [75 refs]. Radiographics. 24(5):1331-52, 2004 Sep-Oct.
21.	Amar AD, Das S. Vesicoureteral reflux in women with primary bladder diverticulum. J Urol. 1985;134(1):33-35.
22.	Majd M, Nussbaum Blask AR, Markle BM, et al. Acute pyelonephritis: comparison of diagnosis with 99mTc-DMSA, SPECT, spiral CT, MR imaging, and power Doppler US in an experimental pig model. Radiology. 2001; 218(1):101-108.
23.	Martina MC, Campanino PP, Caraffo F, et al. Dynamic magnetic resonance imaging in acute pyelonephritis. Radiol Med. 2010;115(2):287-300.
24.	Boyadzhyan L, Raman SS, Raz S. Role of static and dynamic MR imaging in surgical pelvic floor dysfunction. Radiographics. 2008;28(4):949-967.
25.	Woodfield CA, Krishnamoorthy S, Hampton BS, Brody JM. Imaging pelvic floor disorders: trend toward comprehensive MRI. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2010;194(6):1640-1649.
26.	Foster RT, Amundsen CL, Webster GD. The utility of magnetic resonance imaging for diagnosis and surgical planning before transvaginal periurethral diverticulectomy in women. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct. 2007; 18(3):315-319.
27.	Ravichandran S, Ahmed HU, Matanhelia SS, Dobson M. Is there a role for magnetic resonance imaging in diagnosing colovesical fistulas?. Urology. 72(4):832-7, 2008 Oct.Urology. 72(4):832-7, 2008 Oct.
28.	Tang YZ, Booth TC, Swallow D, et al. Imaging features of colovesical fistulae on MRI. Br J Radiol. 2012;85(1018):1371-1375.
29.	Chang YL, Lin AT, Chen KK. Presentation of female urethral diverticulum is usually not typical. Urol Int. 80(1):41-5, 2008.
30.	Chou CP, Huang JS, Wu MT, et al. CT voiding urethrography and virtual urethroscopy: preliminary study with 16-MDCT. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2005 Jun;184(6):1882-8.
31.	Chou CP, Levenson RB, Elsayes KM, et al. Imaging of female urethral diverticulum: an update. [Review] [40 refs]. Radiographics. 28(7):1917-30, 2008 Nov-Dec.
32.	Caoili EM, Cohan RH, Korobkin M, et al. Urinary tract abnormalities: initial experience with multi-detector row CT urography. Radiology. 2002 Feb;222(2):353-60.
33.	Goldman SM, Fishman EK, Gatewood OM, Jones B, Siegelman SS. CT in the diagnosis of enterovesical fistulae. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1985;144(6):1229-1233.
34.	Najjar SF, Jamal MK, Savas JF, Miller TA. The spectrum of colovesical fistula and diagnostic paradigm. Am J Surg. 188(5):617-21, 2004 Nov.
35.	Leyendecker JR, Barnes CE, Zagoria RJ. MR urography: techniques and clinical applications. Radiographics. 2008; 28(1):23-46; discussion 46-27.
36.	Shokeir AA, El-Diasty T, Eassa W, et al. Diagnosis of ureteral obstruction in patients with compromised renal function: the role of noninvasive imaging modalities. J Urol. 2004;171(6 Pt 1):2303-2306.
37.	Regan F, Kuszyk B, Bohlman ME, Jackman S. Acute ureteric calculus obstruction: unenhanced spiral CT versus HASTE MR urography and abdominal radiograph. Br J Radiol. 2005;78(930):506-511.
38.	Mermuys K, De Geeter F, Bacher K, et al. Digital tomosynthesis in the detection of urolithiasis: Diagnostic performance and dosimetry compared with digital radiography with MDCT as the reference standard. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2010;195(1):161-167.
39.	Pollack HM, Banner MP, Martinez LO, Hodson CJ. Diagnostic considerations in urinary bladder wall calcification. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1981;136(4):791-797.
40.	Amis ES, Jr., Cronan JJ, Pfister RC, Yoder IC. Ultrasonic inaccuracies in diagnosing renal obstruction. Urology. 1982;19(1):101-105.
41.	Denton T, Cochlin DL, Evans C. The value of ultrasound in previously undiagnosed renal failure. Br J Radiol. 1984;57(680):673-675.
42.	Kamholtz RG, Cronan JJ, Dorfman GS. Obstruction and the minimally dilated renal collecting system: US evaluation. Radiology. 1989;170(1 Pt 1):51-53.
43.	Choe JH, Lee JY, Lee KS. Accuracy and precision of a new portable ultrasound scanner, the BME-150A, in residual urine volume measurement: a comparison with the BladderScan BVI 3000. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct. 2007;18(6):641-644.
44.	Ray AA, Ghiculete D, Pace KT, Honey RJ. Limitations to ultrasound in the detection and measurement of urinary tract calculi. Urology. 2010;76(2):295-300.
45.	Sheafor DH, Hertzberg BS, Freed KS, et al. Nonenhanced helical CT and US in the emergency evaluation of patients with renal colic: prospective comparison. Radiology. 2000;217(3):792-797.
46.	Viprakasit DP, Sawyer MD, Herrell SD, Miller NL. Limitations of ultrasonography in the evaluation of urolithiasis: a correlation with computed tomography. J Endourol. 2012;26(3):209-213.
47.	American College of Radiology. ACR Appropriateness Criteria® Radiation Dose Assessment Introduction. Available at: https://edge.sitecorecloud.io/americancoldf5f-acrorgf92a-productioncb02-3650/media/ACR/Files/Clinical/Appropriateness-Criteria/ACR-Appropriateness-Criteria-Radiation-Dose-Assessment-Introduction.pdf.
49.	Committee Opinion No. 723: Guidelines for Diagnostic Imaging During Pregnancy and Lactation. Obstet Gynecol. 2017 Oct;130(4):e210-e216.
51.	ACOG Practice Bulletin No. 101: Ultrasonography in pregnancy. Obstet Gynecol. 2009 Feb;113(2 Pt 1):451-61.
53.	Chahine R, Mendiratta-Lala M, Consul N, et al. What can go wrong when doing right? A pictorial review of iatrogenic genitourinary complications. Abdom Radiol (NY). 2024 Nov;49(11):3987-4002.
55.	Chulroek T, Wangcharoenrung D, Cattapan K, et al. Can magnetic resonance imaging differentiate among transurethral bulking agent, urethral diverticulum, and periurethral cyst?. Abdom Radiol (NY). 2019 Aug;44(8):2852-2863.
57.	Cruz J, Figueiredo F, Matos AP, Duarte S, Guerra A, Ramalho M. Infectious and Inflammatory Diseases of the Urinary Tract: Role of MR Imaging. Magn Reson Imaging Clin N Am. 2019 Feb;27(1):S1064-9689(18)30068-0.
59.	De Cecco CN, Boll DT, Bolus DN, et al. White Paper of the Society of Computed Body Tomography and Magnetic Resonance on Dual-Energy CT, Part 4: Abdominal and Pelvic Applications. J Comput Assist Tomogr. 2017 Jan;41(1):8-14.
61.	Fananapazir G, Golshani B, Chen LX, McGahan JP, de Mattos AM, Corwin MT. Bladder debris on ultrasound in the emergency department: correlation with urinalysis. Abdom Radiol (NY). 2018 Sep;43(9):2462-2466.
63.	Kimura K, Yamamoto T, Tsuchiya J, et al. A diagnostic approach of various urethral diseases using multimodal imaging findings: comprehensive overview. Abdom Radiol (NY). 2024 Dec;49(12):4416-4436.
65.	Lopes KR, Jorge BM, Barbosa MH, Barichello E, Nicolussi AC. Use of ultrasonography in the evaluation of urinary retention in critically ill patients. Rev Lat Am Enfermagem. 2023;31():e4026.
67.	Mahfouz W, Hassan HHM, Gubbiotti M, Elbadry M, Moussa A. Does a tailored magnetic resonance imaging technique affect the surgical planning and outcomes for different cystic urethral and periurethral swellings in females? Seven years tertiary center experience. World J Urol. 2022 Jun;40(6):1587-1594.
69.	Mandava A, Koppula V, Sharma G, Kandati M, Raju KVVN, Subramanyeshwar Rao T. Evaluation of genitourinary fistulas in pelvic malignancies with etiopathologic correlation: role of cross sectional imaging in detection and management. Br J Radiol. 2020 Jul;93(1111):20200049.
71.	O'Shea A. Urologic Imaging: Infections and Inflammation. Urol Clin North Am. 2025 Feb;52(1):S0094-0143(24)00074-0.
73.	Sekhar A, Eberhardt L, Lee KS. Imaging of the female urethra. Abdom Radiol (NY). 2019 Dec;44(12):3950-3961.

Disclaimer

The ACR Committee on Appropriateness Criteria and its expert panels have developed criteria for determining appropriate imaging examinations for diagnosis and treatment of specified medical condition(s). These criteria are intended to guide radiologists, radiation oncologists and referring physicians in making decisions regarding radiologic imaging and treatment. Generally, the complexity and severity of a patient’s clinical condition should dictate the selection of appropriate imaging procedures or treatments. Only those examinations generally used for evaluation of the patient’s condition are ranked. Other imaging studies necessary to evaluate other co-existent diseases or other medical consequences of this condition are not considered in this document. The availability of equipment or personnel may influence the selection of appropriate imaging procedures or treatments. Imaging techniques classified as investigational by the FDA have not been considered in developing these criteria; however, study of new equipment and applications should be encouraged. The ultimate decision regarding the appropriateness of any specific radiologic examination or treatment must be made by the referring physician and radiologist in light of all the circumstances presented in an individual examination.