Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-gq7q9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-25T03:04:17.006Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Susceptibility of Nosocomial Urinary Tract Infections Caused by Multiply Resistant Gram-Negative Bacilli Potential Use of Antimicrobials “Resistant” by Disc-Diffusion Testing for Controlling Epidemics

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 April 2016

Walter E. Stamm*
Affiliation:
Hospital Infections Branch, Epidemiology Investigations Laboratory Branch, Bacterial Diseases Division, Bureau of Epidemiology, Center for Disease Control, Atlanta, Georgia
Joseph Arbaczawski
Affiliation:
Hospital Infections Branch, Epidemiology Investigations Laboratory Branch, Bacterial Diseases Division, Bureau of Epidemiology, Center for Disease Control, Atlanta, Georgia
Donald C. Mackel
Affiliation:
Hospital Infections Branch, Epidemiology Investigations Laboratory Branch, Bacterial Diseases Division, Bureau of Epidemiology, Center for Disease Control, Atlanta, Georgia
Roger L. Anderson
Affiliation:
Hospital Infections Branch, Epidemiology Investigations Laboratory Branch, Bacterial Diseases Division, Bureau of Epidemiology, Center for Disease Control, Atlanta, Georgia
*
Department of Medicine, Division of Infectious Diseases, Harborview Medical Center, 325 Ninth Avenue, Seattle, WA 98104

Abstract

Protracted hospital-based epidemics of urinary tract infection and bacteremia due to multiply resistant gram-negative bacilli have become an increasingly common and serious problem. Failure to control such outbreaks stems partly from inability to eradicate a key reservoir, the catheterized bladder. Since eradication of bacteriuria in noncatheterized patients can be achieved with single doses of antimicrobials and correlates with urinary rather than with serum antibiotic concentrations, drugs to which an organism appears resistant by discdiffusion testing, if excreted in the urine in high concentrations, might also prove useful in eliminating catheter-associated bacteriuria. Alternatively, urinary antiseptics, for which antimicrobial sensitivity testing is not usually done, might be effective. To test this hypothesis we determined the minimum inhibitory concentrations (MICs) of 45 multiply resistant Proteus, Serratia, Klebsiella, and Pseudomonas strains isolated in 13 recent epidemics of nosocomial urinary tract infections against 10 selected antimicrobials and urinary antiseptics, and compared these MICs with expected urinary concentrations of each drug. For each genus tested, MICs for at least two antimicrobials or urinary antiseptics were well below easily achievable urinary drug concentrations. Zone size criteria often predicted which drugs had MICs below achievable urinary levels. Little difference was found between MICs determined in Mueller-Hinton broth and in urine. During an epidemic, simultaneous treatment of all patients with bacteriuria by administration of a urinary antiseptic or an antibiotic that achieves high concentrations in urine, in conjunction with brief catheter removal, might prove useful in controlling any further infection.

Type
Original Articles
Copyright
Copyright © The Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America 1980

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

School of Medicine, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington, and Harborview Medical Center, Seattle, Washington.

References

1. Stamm, WE. Epidemics of nosocomial infection—A review of CDC experience of the past ten years. In: Proceedings of APIC 1976. St. Paul, Minnesota, 3M Company, 1977;779800.Google Scholar
2. Schaberg, DS, Weinstein, RA, Stamm, WE. Epidemics of nosocomial urinary tract infection caused by multiply resistant gram-negative bacilli: Epidemiology and control. J Infect Dis 1976;133:363–66.Google Scholar
3. Fang, LST, Tolkoff-Rubin, NE, Rubin, NH. Efficacy of single-dose and conventional amoxicillin therapy in urinary tract infection localized by the antibody-coated bacteria technique. N Engl J Med 1978;298:413–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
4. Kallenius, G, Winberg, J. Urinary tract infections treated with a single dose of short acting sulphonamide. Br Med J 1979;1:1175-76.Google Scholar
5. Stamey, TA, Fair, WR, Timothy, MM, Millar, MM, Mihara, G, Lowery, YC. Serum versus urinary antimicrobial concentrations in cure of urinary-tract infections. N Engl J Med 1974;291:115963.Google Scholar
6. Musher, DM, Minuth, JN, Thorstinsson, SB, Holmes, T. Effectiveness of achievable urinary concentrations of tetracyclines against “tetracycline-resistant” pathogenic bacteria. J Infect Dis 1975;131:S40S44.Google Scholar
7. Bauer, AW, Kirby, WMM, Sherris, JC, Turek, M. Antibiotic susceptibility testing by a standardized single disk method. Am J Clin Pathol 1966;45:493–96.Google Scholar
8. Edwards, RR, Ewing, WH. Identification of the Enterobacteriaceae. Minneapolis, Burgess Publishing Company, 1972.Google Scholar
9. Barry, AL. The Antimicrobic Susceptibility Test: Principles and Practices. Philadelphia, Lea & Febiger, 1976.Google Scholar
10. Gonick, P, Falkner, B, Schwartz, A, Pariser, R. Bacteriuria in the catheterized patient—cystitis or pyelonephritis. JAMA 1975;233:253–55.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
11. Stamm, WE, Martin, SM, Bennett, JV. Epidemiology of noscomial infections due to gram-negative bacilli: Aspects relevant to development and use of vaccines. J Infect Dis 1977;136:S151S160.Google Scholar
12. Zinner, SH, Sabath, LD, Casey, JI, Finland, M. Erythromycin and alkalinization of the urine in the treatment of urinary tract infections due to gram-negative bacilli. Lancet 1971;1:126768.Google Scholar