Evidence Hub

Identifying the risk factors for catheter-associated urinary tract infections: a large cross-sectional study of six hospitals

Allison S. Letica-Kriegel, H. Salmasian, D. Vawdrey, B. Youngerman, R. A. Green, E. Furuya, David P. Calfee, Rimma Perotte

BMJ Open, 2019

47 participants · 184 citations

Abstract

Motivation Catheter-associated urinary tract infections (CAUTI) are a common and serious healthcare-associated infection. Despite many efforts to reduce the occurrence of CAUTI, there remains a gap in the literature about CAUTI risk factors, especially pertaining to the effect of catheter dwell-time on CAUTI development and patient comorbidities. Objective To examine how the risk for CAUTI changes over time. Additionally, to assess whether time from catheter insertion to CAUTI event varied according to risk factors such as age, sex, patient type (surgical vs medical) and comorbidities. Design Retrospective cohort study of all patients who were catheterised from 2012 to 2016, including those who did and did not develop CAUTIs. Both paediatric and adult patients were included. Indwelling urinary catheterisation is the exposure variable. The variable is interval, as all participants were exposed but for different lengths of time. Setting Urban academic health system of over 2500 beds. The system encompasses two large academic medical centres, two community hospitals and a paediatric hospital. Results The study population was 47 926 patients who had 61 047 catheterisations, of which 861 (1.41%) resulted in a CAUTI. CAUTI rates were found to increase non-linearly for each additional day of catheterisation; CAUTI-free survival was 97.3% (CI: 97.1 to 97.6) at 10 days, 88.2% (CI: 86.9 to 89.5) at 30 days and 71.8% (CI: 66.3 to 77.8) at 60 days. This translated to an instantaneous HR…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a cross-sectional, done in people. Its evidence level is 4 of 5 (Low · observational). Observational designs can show an association but not prove cause. Reported size: 47 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