American journal of obstetrics and gynecology · 2004
A study of female urinary tract infection caused by urodynamic investigation.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Yip Shing-Kai, Fung Kitty, Pang Man-Wah, Leung Peter, Chan Daniel, Sahota Daljit
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to assess the prevalence of female urinary tract infection before and after urodynamic investigation and to identify the risk factors for urinary tract infection after urodynamic investigation.
STUDY DESIGN: Eight hundred twenty-two consecutive incontinent women were recruited. All women were "double-screened" and treated for urinary tract infection before urodynamic investigation: first by mid stream urine culture 4 to 6 weeks before investigation and then by reagent strips for urine leukocytes and nitrites at the time of investigation. The investigation was postponed until the urinary tract infection had been treated. All women then received a standard urodynamic investigation.
RESULTS: The prevalence of urinary tract infection before urodynamic investigation was 5.1% (95% CI, 3.6-6.6), and the prevalence after the investigation was 8.4% (95% CI, 6.5-10.3). Three independent risk factors were identified: age >or=70 years (odds ratio, 1.99; 95% CI, 1.14-3.48), previous continence surgery (odds ratio, 1.90; 95% CI, 1.05-3.43), and urinary tract infection before urodynamic investigation (odds ratio, 3.13; 95% CI, 1.43-6.83). The 3 most common uropathogens in the urinary tract infections after the urodynamic investigation were Escherichia coli (46.3%), Enterococcus spp (16.4%), and Enterococcus faecalis (11.9%).
CONCLUSION: Despite a stringent screen-and-treat protocol before urodynamic investigation, patients still experienced urinary tract infection.
STUDY DESIGN: Eight hundred twenty-two consecutive incontinent women were recruited. All women were "double-screened" and treated for urinary tract infection before urodynamic investigation: first by mid stream urine culture 4 to 6 weeks before investigation and then by reagent strips for urine leukocytes and nitrites at the time of investigation. The investigation was postponed until the urinary tract infection had been treated. All women then received a standard urodynamic investigation.
RESULTS: The prevalence of urinary tract infection before urodynamic investigation was 5.1% (95% CI, 3.6-6.6), and the prevalence after the investigation was 8.4% (95% CI, 6.5-10.3). Three independent risk factors were identified: age >or=70 years (odds ratio, 1.99; 95% CI, 1.14-3.48), previous continence surgery (odds ratio, 1.90; 95% CI, 1.05-3.43), and urinary tract infection before urodynamic investigation (odds ratio, 3.13; 95% CI, 1.43-6.83). The 3 most common uropathogens in the urinary tract infections after the urodynamic investigation were Escherichia coli (46.3%), Enterococcus spp (16.4%), and Enterococcus faecalis (11.9%).
CONCLUSION: Despite a stringent screen-and-treat protocol before urodynamic investigation, patients still experienced urinary tract infection.