Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-gb8f7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T00:23:52.352Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Nosocomial Urinary Tract Infection: A Prospective Evaluation of 108 Catheterized Patients

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 January 2015

Alan I. Hartstein ,
Susan B. Garber ,
Thomas T. Ward ,
Stephen R. Jones  and
Virginia H. Morthland
Alan I. Hartstein*
Affiliation:
Division of Infectious Diseases and Departments of Medicine, Public Health and Preventive Medicine, and Hospital Infection Control, University of Oregon Health Sciences Center, Portland
Susan B. Garber
Affiliation:
Division of Infectious Diseases and Departments of Medicine, Public Health and Preventive Medicine, and Hospital Infection Control, University of Oregon Health Sciences Center, Portland
Thomas T. Ward
Affiliation:
Division of Infectious Diseases and Departments of Medicine, Public Health and Preventive Medicine, and Hospital Infection Control, University of Oregon Health Sciences Center, Portland
Stephen R. Jones
Affiliation:
Division of Infectious Diseases and Departments of Medicine, Public Health and Preventive Medicine, and Hospital Infection Control, University of Oregon Health Sciences Center, Portland
Virginia H. Morthland
Affiliation:
Division of Infectious Diseases and Departments of Medicine, Public Health and Preventive Medicine, and Hospital Infection Control, University of Oregon Health Sciences Center, Portland
*
University of Oregon Health Sciences Center, Portland, OR 97201
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This study describes the evaluation of 108 patients who had indwelling urethral catheters for acute medical and surgical indications. Patients were evaluated daily, and cultures from bladders and drainage bags were obtained. Appropriateness for continuing catheterization was assessed using preset criteria. Twenty-five patients developed urinary tract infections. Exposure to antibiotics and a shorter duration of catheterization were the only factors that correlated significantly with a delayed onset or decreased prevalence of infection. Factors found to have insignificant effects included age, sex, maintenance of the closed system, underlying host disease status, catheter type, and reason for catheterization. No collection systems with one way valves were used, but significant colony counts in drainage bag urine preceded urinary tract infection in only two patients. Thirty-six percent of the total 562 catheter days were judged unnecessary. A major emphasis must be placed on prompt catheter removal if the prevalence of nosocomial urinary tract infections is to be reduced substantially in a cost-effective manner [Infect Control 1981; 2(5):380-386.]

Type
Original Articles
Information
Infection Control & Hospital Epidemiology , Volume 2 , Issue 5 , October 1981 , pp. 380 - 386
Copyright
Copyright © The Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America 1981

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1.Kunin, CM. Urinary tract infections. In: Bennett, JV, Brachman, PS (eds). Hospital Infections. Boston, Little Brown, 1979.Google Scholar
2.Lindan, R. The prevention of ascending catheter-induced infections of the urinary tract. J Chronic Dis 1969; 22:321–50.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
3.Garibaldi, RA, Burke, JP, Dickman, MLet al.Factors predisposing to bacteriuria during indwelling urethral catheterization. N Engl J Med 1974; 291:215–9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
4.McCabe, WR, Jackson, GG. Gram-negative bacteremia. I. Etiology and ecology. Arch Intern Med 1962;110:847–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
5.Sanford, JP. Isolation and enumeration of microorganisms. In: Race, G (ed). Laboratory Medicine. New York, Harper and Row, 1970, vol. 2, chap. 14:8-9.Google Scholar
6.Thomas, V, Shelokov, A, Forland, M. Antibody-coated bacteria in urine and the site of urinary-tract infection. N Engl J Med 1974; 290:591–3.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
7.Jones, SR. Antibody-coated bacteria in urine. N Engl J Med 1976; 295:1380.Google ScholarPubMed
8.Cox, DR. Some simple approximate tests for poisson variates. Biometrika 1953; 40:354–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
9.Grunkemeier, GL, Thomas, DR, Starr, A. Statistical considerations in the analysis and reporting of time-related events. Am J Cardiol 1977; 39:257–8.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
10.Mantel, N. Evaluation of survival data and two new rank order statistics arising in its consideration. Cancer Chemotherapy Reports 1966; 50:163–70.Google ScholarPubMed
11.Steere, AC, Stamm, WE, Martin, SMet al.Gram-negative rod bacteremia. In: Bennett, JV, Brachman, PS (eds): Hospital Infections. Boston, Little Brown, 1979.Google Scholar
12.Stamm, WE. Guidelines for prevention of catheter-associated urinary tract infections. Ann Intern Med 1975; 82:386–90.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
13.Anderson, RU. Response of bladder and urethral mucosa to catheterization. JAMA 1979; 242:451–3.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
14.Kass, EH, Schneiderman, LJ. Entry of bacteria into the urinary tract of patients with inlying catheters. N Engl J Med 1957; 256:556–7.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
15.Garibaldi, RA, Burke, JP, Britt, MRet al.Meatal colonization and catheter-associated bacteriuria. N Engl J Med 1980; 303:316–8.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
16.Maizels, M, Schaeffer, AJ. Decreased incidence of bacteriuria associated with periodic instillations of hydrogen peroxide into the urethral catheter drainage bag. J Urol 1980; 123:841–5.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
17.Thornton, GF, Andriole, VT. Bacteriuria during indwellingcatheter drainage. II. Effect of a closed drainage system. JAMA 1970; 214:339–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
18.Burke, JP, Garibaldi, RA, Britt, MRet al.Prevention of catheter-associated urinary tract infections. Am J Med 1981, 70:655–8.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
19.Kunin, CM, Finkelberg, Z. Evaluation of an intraurethral lubricating catheter in prevention of catheter-induced urinary tract infections. J Urol 1971; 106:928–30.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
20.Akiyama, H, Okamoto, S. Prophylaxis of indwelling urethral catheter infection: Clinical experience with a modified Foley catheter and drainage system. J Urol 1979; 121:40–2.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
21.Hirsh, DD, Fainstein, V, Musher, DM. Do condom catheter collecting systems cause urinary tract infection? JAMA 1979; 242:340–1.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
22.Marcus, RT. Narrow-bore suprapubic bladder drainage in Uganda. Lancet 1967; 2:748–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
23.Kunin, CM, McCormack, RC. Prevention of catheter-induced urinary-tract infections by sterile closed drainage. N Engl J Med 1966; 274:1155–61.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
24.Britt, MR, Garibaldi, RA, Miller, WAet al.Antimicrobial prophylaxis for catheter-associated bacteriuria. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1977; 11:240–3.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
25.Chodak, CW, Plaut, ME. Systemic antibiotics for prophylaxis in urologie surgery: A critical review. J Urol 1979; 121:695–9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
26.Barry, JM, Lawson, RK, Strong, Det al.Urologie complications in 173 kidney transplants. J Urol 1974; 112:567–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
27.Barry, JM, Craig, DH, Fischer, SMet al.An analysis of 100 primary cadaver kidney transplants. J Urol 1980; 124:783–6.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
28.Langlois, S, Pechere, JC, Lachance, JG. Restrictive antibiotherapy after renal transplantation. CMA Journal 1979; 120:426–32.Google ScholarPubMed
29.Kass, EH. Antimicrobial drug usage in general hospitals in Pennsylvania. Ann Intern Med 1978; 89:800–1.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
30.Fang, LS, Tolkoff-Rubin, NE, Rubin, RH. Efficacy of single-dose and conventional amoxicillin therapy in urinary tract infection localized by the antibody-coated bacteria technique. N Engl J Med 1978; 298:413–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar