Diagnostic accuracy of urinary dipstick to exclude catheter-associated urinary tract infection in ICU patients: A reappraisal

1Citations
Citations of this article
30Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

This article is free to access.

Abstract

Objectives: We wanted to assess the diagnostic accuracy of urinary dipstick testing in excluding catheter-associated urinary tract infection (CAUTI) in intensive care unit (ICU) patients with fever or hypothermia. Methods: This was a prospective observational cohort study in a medical-surgical ICU. Patients with new-onset fever >38.3°C or hypothermia <36°C at least 48 h after urinary catheter insertion were included over a 2-year period. At each episode, a urinary dipstick test and a urine culture were performed as the criterion standard. Extensive microbiological investigations for extra-urinary infections were performed also. The performances of various urinary dipstick result combinations in ruling out CAUTI were compared based on the likelihood ratios (LR+ and LR-). Results: Symptomatic CAUTI was diagnosed in 31 (24.4 %) of the 127 included patients (195 episodes of fever or hypothermia). LR+ was best for combined leukocyte esterase-positive and nitrite-positive dipstick results (overall population: 14.91; 95 % confidence interval [95 % CI], 5.53-40.19; patients without urinary symptoms: 15.63; 95 % CI, 5.76-42.39). LR- was best for either leukocyte esterase-positive or nitrite-positive dipstick results (overall population: 0.41; 95 % CI, 0.57-0.65; patients without urinary symptoms, 0.36; 95 % CI, 0.21-0.60). Conclusions: Urinary dipstick testing at the bedside does not help to rule out symptomatic CAUTI in medical or surgical ICU patients with fever or hypothermia. © 2014 Springer-Verlag.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Coman, T., Troché, G., Semoun, O., Pangon, B., Mignon, F., Jacq, G., … Legriel, S. (2014). Diagnostic accuracy of urinary dipstick to exclude catheter-associated urinary tract infection in ICU patients: A reappraisal. Infection, 42(4), 661–668. https://doi.org/10.1007/s15010-014-0612-6

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free