| Literature DB >> 20696641 |
Zoltan Mathe1, J W Treckmann, M Heuer, A Zeiger, S Sauerland, O Witzke, A Paul.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Our objective was to evaluate the impact of routine use of double-J stents on the incidence of urinary tract infection after renal transplantation.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2010 PMID: 20696641 PMCID: PMC3351954 DOI: 10.1186/2047-783x-15-7-297
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Eur J Med Res ISSN: 0949-2321 Impact factor: 2.175
Baseline characteristics of the two group of recipients.
| ST group | NST group | P value | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 157 (50.6%) | 153 (49.4%) | - | |
| 53.0 (12.1) | 48.5 (13.7) | 0.003 | |
| 94 (59.9%) | 92 (60.1%) | 1.0 | |
| 25.3 (4.3) | 24.4 (4.0) | 0.07 | |
| 123 (78.3%) | 114 (74.5%) | 0.91 | |
| 79.3 (49.5) | 66.2 (34.8) | 0.008 | |
| 15.6 (6.0) | 17.7 (8.3) | 0.01 | |
| 0.81 | |||
| 21 (13%) | 23 (15%) | ||
| 14 (9%) | 16 (11%) | ||
| 29 (19%) | 32 (21%) | ||
| 35 (22%) | 27 (18%) | ||
| 34 (22%) | 33 (22%) | ||
| 12 (8%) | 15 (10%) | ||
| 12 (8%) | 7 (5%) | ||
| 73 (46.5%) | 81 (52.9%) | 0.55 | |
| 69 (43.9%) | 49 (32.0%) | 0.035 |
Donor demographics.
| ST group | NST group | P value | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 52.3 (16.3) | 46.8 (15.9) | 0.003 | |
| 81 (52.3%) | 78 (51.3%) | 0.91 | |
| 26.2 (4.8) | 25.0 (4.9) | 0.033 | |
| 79 (51.0%) | 82 (53.9%) | 0.65 | |
| 0.28 | |||
| | 93 (59%) | 74 (48%) | |
| | 27 (17%) | 30 (20%) | |
| | 17 (11%) | 21 (14%) | |
| | 13 (8%) | 24 (16%) | |
| | 7 (4%) | 4 (3%) | |
| 4 (IQR 2 to 8) | 3 (IQR 2 to 8) | 0.99 | |
| 0.90 | 0.90 | 0.96 | |
| (IQR 0.63 to 1.30) | (IQR 0.70 to 1.25) |
Figure 1Microbial species cultures from 129 recipients having clinical symptoms of UTI.
Clinical results in the two groups.
| ST group | NST group | P value | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 68 (43.3%) | 61 (40.1%) | 0.65 | |
| 13 (8.3%) | 9 (5.9%) | 0.51 | |
| 2 (1.3%) | 2 (1.3%) | 1.0 | |
| 9 (5.7%) | 11 (7.2%) | 0.65 | |
| 11 (7.0%) | 17 (11.2%) | 0.24 | |
| 36 (22.9%) | 53 (34.6%) | 0.024 |
Results of multivariate regression analyses of predictors for UTI.
| Variable | Coefficient in Initial regression model | P value | Coefficient in final regression model (with 95%-CI) | P value |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0.998 | 0.93 | - | ||
| 0.395 | 0.002 | 0.40 (0.23 to 0.70) | 0.001 | |
| 1.005 | 0.88 | - | ||
| 1.0 | 1.0 | - | ||
| 1.625 | 0.33 | 1.68 (0.95 to 2.97) | 0.077 | |
| 0.998 | 0.59 | - | ||
| 1.001 | 0.75 | - | ||
| 1.169 | 0.62 | - | ||
| 0.986 | 0.964 | - | ||
| 0.980 | 0.307 | - |
Explanatory power of the final model was limited, as Nagelkerke's R2 was 0.08.
Figure 2Recipient eGFR (in ml/1.73 m.