Evidence Hub

Basic patient characteristics predict antimicrobial resistance in E. coli from urinary tract specimens: a retrospective cohort analysis of 5246 urine samples

S. Erb, R. Frei, S. Tschudin-Sutter, A. Egli, M. Dangel, G. Bonkat, A. Widmer

Swiss medical weekly, 2018

4,870 participants · 27 citations

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Antimicrobial resistance data from surveillance networks are frequently do not accurately predict resistance patterns of urinary tract infections at the bedside.

OJECTIVE

To determine simple patient- and institution-related risk factors affecting antimicrobial resistance patterns of Escherichia coli urine isolates.

METHODS

From January 2012 to May 2015 all consecutive urine samples with significant growth of E. coli (≥103 CFU/ml) obtained from a tertiary care hospital were analysed for antimicrobial susceptibility and related to basic clinical data such a patient age, ward, sample type (catheter vs non-catheter urine).

RESULTS

Antimicrobial susceptibility testing was available for 5246 E. coli urine isolates from 4870 patients. E. coli was most commonly resistant to amoxicillin (43.1%), cotrimoxazole (24.5%) and ciprofloxacin (17.4%). Resistance rates were low for meropenem (0.0%), fosfomycin (0.9%) and nitrofurantoin (1.5%). Significantly higher rates of resistance to ciprofloxacin (32.8 vs 15.8%) and cotrimoxazole (30.6 vs 23.9%) were found in urological patients compared with patients on other wards (p <0.01). In multivariable analysis, predictors for E. coli resistance against ciprofloxacin and cotrimoxazole were: treatment in the urological unit (odds ratio [OR] 2.04, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.63-2.54; p <0.001 and OR 1.33, 95% CI 1.07-1.64; p = 0.010, respectively), male sex (OR 1.93, 95% CI 1.630-2.29; p <0.001 and OR 1.22, 95% CI 1.22-1.04; p =…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a cohort study, done in people. Its evidence level is 3 of 5 (Moderate · trial / cohort / secondary analysis). Trials without a large randomized design, cohorts and secondary analyses give moderate evidence. Reported size: 4,870 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free