Stephanie J M Middelkoop, Anoek A E de Joode, L Joost van Pelt, Greetje A Kampinga, Jan C Ter Maaten, Coen A Stegeman
{"title":"Clinical usefulness of urine Gram stain for diagnosing urinary tract infections at the emergency department.","authors":"Stephanie J M Middelkoop, Anoek A E de Joode, L Joost van Pelt, Greetje A Kampinga, Jan C Ter Maaten, Coen A Stegeman","doi":"10.1080/23744235.2024.2389478","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Diagnosis of urinary tract infections (UTIs) is a frequent challenge at the emergency department (ED). The clinical usefulness of the urine Gram stain (GS) is uncertain.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>We studied the GS performance to clarify its clinical utility at the ED.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Urine dipstick (UD), automated urinalysis (UF-1000<i>i</i>), GS and urine culture (UC) were performed in a cohort of consecutive adults presenting at the ED suspected of a UTI. GS performance was assessed and compared to UD and UF-1000<i>i.</i></p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A UTI diagnosis was established in 487/1358 (35.9%) episodes. Sensitivity and specificity for 'many' GS leucocytes was 33.7% and 95.4%; for 'many' GS bacteria 51.3% and 91.0%. GS diagnostic performance by ROC analysis was 0.796 for leucocytes and 0.823 for bacteria. GS bacteria performed better than UD nitrite comparable to UF-1000<i>i</i> bacteria. GS leucocytes underperformed compared to UD leucocyte esterase and UF-1000<i>i</i> leucocytes. UC was positive in 455 episodes. GS correctly predicted urine culture of gram-negative rods (PPV 84.6%). Prediction was poor for gram-positive bacteria (PPV 38.4% (cocci), 1.0% (rods)).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>With the exception of a moderate prediction of gram-negative bacteria in the UC, urine GS does not improve UTI diagnosis at the ED compared to other urine parameters.</p>","PeriodicalId":73372,"journal":{"name":"Infectious diseases (London, England)","volume":" ","pages":"1093-1101"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Infectious diseases (London, England)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/23744235.2024.2389478","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/8/16 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Background: Diagnosis of urinary tract infections (UTIs) is a frequent challenge at the emergency department (ED). The clinical usefulness of the urine Gram stain (GS) is uncertain.
Objective: We studied the GS performance to clarify its clinical utility at the ED.
Methods: Urine dipstick (UD), automated urinalysis (UF-1000i), GS and urine culture (UC) were performed in a cohort of consecutive adults presenting at the ED suspected of a UTI. GS performance was assessed and compared to UD and UF-1000i.
Results: A UTI diagnosis was established in 487/1358 (35.9%) episodes. Sensitivity and specificity for 'many' GS leucocytes was 33.7% and 95.4%; for 'many' GS bacteria 51.3% and 91.0%. GS diagnostic performance by ROC analysis was 0.796 for leucocytes and 0.823 for bacteria. GS bacteria performed better than UD nitrite comparable to UF-1000i bacteria. GS leucocytes underperformed compared to UD leucocyte esterase and UF-1000i leucocytes. UC was positive in 455 episodes. GS correctly predicted urine culture of gram-negative rods (PPV 84.6%). Prediction was poor for gram-positive bacteria (PPV 38.4% (cocci), 1.0% (rods)).
Conclusion: With the exception of a moderate prediction of gram-negative bacteria in the UC, urine GS does not improve UTI diagnosis at the ED compared to other urine parameters.