[Urinary infections: observations on the frequency of microbial isolation at the hospital environment and its surroundings].

G Mastracchio, A Malcangi, C Mineccia, P Martinetto, A M Angela
{"title":"[Urinary infections: observations on the frequency of microbial isolation at the hospital environment and its surroundings].","authors":"G Mastracchio,&nbsp;A Malcangi,&nbsp;C Mineccia,&nbsp;P Martinetto,&nbsp;A M Angela","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Numerous studies have been carried out to specify bacterial frequencies in the urinary tract infections. In such researches the prevalence of Gram negative bacterial species has generally emerged, the most part of these ones would be Enterobatteriaceae (and among them E. coli has a special prominent position); on the other hand several Authors have often found, among other bacterial groups (Gram positive bacteria, Pseudomonas etc.) involved in such pathologies, some differences (also remarkable) in relation to various factors, among them, the hospitalizing condition, the clinical situation, the type of infection etc. In this research we have carried out a statistical analysis of the bacterial frequencies relative to 321 positive urine cultures, trying to point out their differences in relation to hospitalized or ambulatorial patients and to single are mixed infections; above all with regard to three bacterial groups: Enterobatteriaceae, Pseudomonas species and Gram positive bacteria. The most evident result has been the absolute prevalence of Enterobacteriaceae, among them the E. coli has represented, almost always, the most frequent isolated species, followed by Proteus mirabilis, in every kind of patient (hospitalized or ambulatorial) and infection, single or double (we didn't notice, in this research, infections supported by more than two species). Moreover, we noticed, but with less clearness, especially in relation to the numerical dimension of the observations and to the short comparison of the two kind of patients, some indications pointing out that hospitalized patients (in comparison with the ambulatorial) were charged with a major frequency of the two kind of patients, some indications pointing out that hospitalized patients (in comparison with the ambulatorial) were charged with a major frequency of infections supported by Gram + bacteria and Proteus mirabilis, while the Pseudomonas species presented an opposite behaviour (contrary to what several Authors generally report in literature: but a pollution problem of the specimen might have had some influence); and as regard the single infections we observed, among them, a greater frequency of the E. coli and Gram + bacteria than among the double infections, while the Pseudomonas species happened the contrary.</p>","PeriodicalId":12722,"journal":{"name":"Giornale di batteriologia, virologia ed immunologia","volume":"82 1-12","pages":"174-91"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1989-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Giornale di batteriologia, virologia ed immunologia","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Numerous studies have been carried out to specify bacterial frequencies in the urinary tract infections. In such researches the prevalence of Gram negative bacterial species has generally emerged, the most part of these ones would be Enterobatteriaceae (and among them E. coli has a special prominent position); on the other hand several Authors have often found, among other bacterial groups (Gram positive bacteria, Pseudomonas etc.) involved in such pathologies, some differences (also remarkable) in relation to various factors, among them, the hospitalizing condition, the clinical situation, the type of infection etc. In this research we have carried out a statistical analysis of the bacterial frequencies relative to 321 positive urine cultures, trying to point out their differences in relation to hospitalized or ambulatorial patients and to single are mixed infections; above all with regard to three bacterial groups: Enterobatteriaceae, Pseudomonas species and Gram positive bacteria. The most evident result has been the absolute prevalence of Enterobacteriaceae, among them the E. coli has represented, almost always, the most frequent isolated species, followed by Proteus mirabilis, in every kind of patient (hospitalized or ambulatorial) and infection, single or double (we didn't notice, in this research, infections supported by more than two species). Moreover, we noticed, but with less clearness, especially in relation to the numerical dimension of the observations and to the short comparison of the two kind of patients, some indications pointing out that hospitalized patients (in comparison with the ambulatorial) were charged with a major frequency of the two kind of patients, some indications pointing out that hospitalized patients (in comparison with the ambulatorial) were charged with a major frequency of infections supported by Gram + bacteria and Proteus mirabilis, while the Pseudomonas species presented an opposite behaviour (contrary to what several Authors generally report in literature: but a pollution problem of the specimen might have had some influence); and as regard the single infections we observed, among them, a greater frequency of the E. coli and Gram + bacteria than among the double infections, while the Pseudomonas species happened the contrary.

泌尿系感染:医院环境及周边环境微生物分离频率观察
已经进行了大量的研究来确定尿路感染中的细菌频率。在这类研究中,革兰氏阴性菌的流行菌种已普遍出现,其中以肠杆菌科细菌居多(其中大肠杆菌的地位特别突出);另一方面,一些作者经常发现,与这些病理有关的其他细菌群(革兰氏阳性菌、假单胞菌等)在各种因素方面存在一些差异(也很显著),其中包括住院条件、临床情况、感染类型等。在这项研究中,我们对321例阳性尿液培养的细菌频率进行了统计分析,试图指出它们在住院或门诊患者以及单一或混合感染之间的差异;尤其是三种细菌群:肠杆菌科、假单胞菌和革兰氏阳性细菌。最明显的结果是肠杆菌科的绝对流行,其中大肠杆菌几乎总是最常见的分离种,其次是变形杆菌,在每一种病人(住院或门诊)和感染中,无论是单种还是双种(我们没有注意到,在这项研究中,感染由两个以上的物种支持)。此外,我们注意到,但不太清楚,特别是在观察的数字维度和对两类患者的简短比较中,一些迹象指出,住院患者(与门诊患者相比)被指控为两类患者的主要频率,一些迹象指出,住院病人(与门诊病人相比)感染革兰氏+细菌和奇异变形杆菌的频率较高,而假单胞菌则表现出相反的行为(与一些作者在文献中普遍报道的情况相反:但标本的污染问题可能有一些影响);在单次感染中,大肠杆菌和革兰氏+菌的感染率高于双次感染,而假单胞菌的感染率则相反。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信