Literature DB >> 17407472

A comparative study on bacterial cultures of urine samples obtained by clean-void technique versus urethral catheterization.

Angela Yu Lau1, Sik-Nin Wong, Kam-Tong Yip, Kwok-Wah Fong, Samantha Po-Siu Li, Tak-Lun Que.   

Abstract

UNLABELLED: Contamination during urine collection causes difficulty in diagnosing infantile urinary tract infection (UTI). Though considered a gold-standard, suprapubic aspiration is traumatic and not always successful. Catheterization and clean void technique were often preferred but their relative usefulness has not been compared.
OBJECTIVES: To compare the culture results of clean void urine (CVU) and catheter urine (CathU) from children below 2-years old known to have no UTI. We tested whether the false-positive rates of CVU were significantly different from that of CathU.
METHODS: Paired CVU and CathU samples were collected from asymptomatic children admitted for micturiting cystourethrogram, and tested for leucocytes and nitrite, and bacterial culture using standard laboratory methods.
RESULTS: Culture results for 98 children (82 boys, 16 girls; aged 6 +/- 4.3 months) were analysed. Analysis by presence/absence of growths showed good agreement between CVU and CathU for boys (Kappa 0.42) but poor for girls (Kappa 0.18). When analysed by colony counts, agreement was poor with CVU yielding more counts than CathU (Kappa 0.1 for boys and 0.04 for girls). If all mixed growth results were considered as contaminants, the false positive rates for CathU and CVU were similar whether the cut-off was defined as 10(3), 10(4) or 10(5)/mL. If mixed growth was believed to cause UTI, CathU produced less false-positive rates than CVU, though both rates were unacceptably high.
CONCLUSION: In uncircumcized boys, both CVU and CathU were prone to contamination. Though the contaminating bacterial counts were lower in CathU culture, the false-positive rates were high with the lower cut-off CFUs. Contrary to previous recommendations, CathU should be interpreted similar to CVU to avoid false positive diagnosis of UTI.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2007        PMID: 17407472     DOI: 10.1111/j.1651-2227.2006.00146.x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Acta Paediatr        ISSN: 0803-5253            Impact factor:   2.299


  7 in total

1.  Midstream clean-catch urine collection in newborns: a randomized controlled study.

Authors:  Nilgun Altuntas; Asli Celebi Tayfur; Mesut Kocak; Hasan Cem Razi; Serpil Akkurt
Journal:  Eur J Pediatr       Date:  2014-10-17       Impact factor: 3.183

2.  Defining urinary tract infection by bacterial colony counts: a case for 100,000 colonies/ml as the best threshold.

Authors:  Malcolm G Coulthard
Journal:  Pediatr Nephrol       Date:  2019-06-28       Impact factor: 3.714

Review 3.  Catheterization without foreskin retraction.

Authors:  Adrienne Carmack; Marilyn Fayre Milos
Journal:  Can Fam Physician       Date:  2017-03       Impact factor: 3.275

4.  Prevalence of urinary tract infection in acutely unwell children in general practice: a prospective study with systematic urine sampling.

Authors:  Kathryn O'Brien; Adrian Edwards; Kerenza Hood; Christopher C Butler
Journal:  Br J Gen Pract       Date:  2013-02       Impact factor: 5.386

5.  Validity of bag urine culture for predicting urinary tract infections in febrile infants: a paired comparison of urine collection methods.

Authors:  Geun-A Kim; Ja-Wook Koo
Journal:  Korean J Pediatr       Date:  2015-05-22

6.  Evaluation of the Bladder Stimulation Technique to Collect Midstream Urine in Infants in a Pediatric Emergency Department.

Authors:  Antoine Tran; Clara Fortier; Lisa Giovannini-Chami; Diane Demonchy; Hervé Caci; Jonathan Desmontils; Isabelle Montaudie-Dumas; Ronny Bensaïd; Hervé Haas; Etienne Berard
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2016-03-31       Impact factor: 3.240

7.  Evaluation of bladder stimulation as a non-invasive technique for urine collection to diagnose urinary tract infection in infants under 6 months: a randomized multicenter study ("EE-Sti.Ve.N").

Authors:  D Demonchy; C Ciais; E Fontas; E Berard; J Bréaud; P S Rohrlich; F Dubos; C Fortier; J Desmontils; A L Hérisse; D Donzeau; H Haas; A Tran
Journal:  Trials       Date:  2019-12-27       Impact factor: 2.279

  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.