| Literature DB >> 36109739 |
Laura Cesca1, Ester Conversano2, Federica Alessandra Vianello3, Laura Martelli4, Chiara Gualeni5, Francesca Bassani6, Milena Brugnara7, Giulia Rubin8, Mattia Parolin9, Mauro Anselmi10, Mara Marchiori11, Gianluca Vergine12, Elisabetta Miorin13, Enrico Vidal14, Cristina Milocco15, Cecilia Orsi16, Giuseppe Puccio3, Licia Peruzzi16, Giovanni Montini3,17, Roberto Dall'Amico1.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The first Covid-19 pandemic affected the epidemiology of several diseases. A general reduction in the emergency department (ED) accesses was observed during this period, both in adult and pediatric contexts.Entities:
Keywords: Covid19; Diagnosis delay; Urinary tract infection
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2022 PMID: 36109739 PMCID: PMC9476415 DOI: 10.1186/s12887-022-03516-7
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Pediatr ISSN: 1471-2431 Impact factor: 2.567
Counts of ED visits and UTI diagnoses, and rate of UTI diagnoses (UTI diagnoses / ED visits) in the two periods
| Period 1 | Period 2 | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Total number of ED visits | 56,937 (mean per year) | 14,195 | < 0.001 |
| Total number of UTI diagnoses | 133 (mean per year) | 73 | < 0.001 |
| Total rate of UTI diagnoses | 0.23% | 0.51% | < 0.001 |
Children with UTI diagnosis: baseline data and data collected after admission to ED in the two periods: categorical data
| Period 1 | Period 2 | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Gender (Female) | 53.4% | 42.5% | 0.10 |
| Access mode (referred by pediatrician) | 16.2% | 21.4% | 0.31 |
| Previous UTI | 23.7% | 23.6% | 0.99 |
| Previous urinary tract malformations | 20.2% | 26.8% | 0.23 |
| Hospitalization | 43.5% | 63.0% | 0.008 |
Children with UTI diagnosis: baseline data and data collected after admission to ED in the two periods: continuous data
| Period 1 | Period 2 | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Median | Median | ||
| Age (years) | 0.8 | 0.6 | 0.97 |
| WBC 10^3/μL | 15.2 | 17.0 | 0.32 |
| N 10^3/μL | 8.7 | 10.0 | 0.35 |
| CRP (mg/dL) | 5.8 | 8.6 | 0.006 |
Fig. 1Distribution of per cent variation between period 2 and 1 in the absolute number of ED visits (a), the absolute number of UTI diagnoses (b), and UTI diagnosis rate (c) between the centres participating in the study. A paired analysis was performed to detect the general trend prevailing in centres
Fig. 2Histogram of age distribution of patients with diagnosis of febrile UTI. The distribution is absolutely not normal, as shown also by a Shapiro Wilk test (p value < 0.001)
Children with UTI diagnosis: clinical features
| Period 1 | Period 2 | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Days of fever before ED visit | |||
| 1 | 62% | 47% | 0.02 |
| 2 | 18% | 23% | |
| > 2 | 20% | 30% | |
| Hospitalization | 45.5% | 63% | 0.008 |
Type of germ In urine culture | |||
| E. coli | 82.7% | 74% | 0.02 |
| P. aeruginosa | 0.8% | 6,8% | |
| E. faecalis | 2.3% | 5.5% | |
| Klebsiella pn | 3.8% | 4.1% | |
| Proteus | 4.1% | 2,7% | |
| Other | 6.4% | 6.8% | |