Skip to main content

Table 2 Characteristics of patients with bacteraemia due to urinary tract infections caused by ESBL-producing Enterobacteriaceae

From: Bacteraemic urinary tract infections in a tertiary hospital in Japan: the epidemiology of community-acquired infections and the role of non-carbapenem therapy

 

CBP, N = 12

non-CBPBL, N = 7

OR* (95% CI)

P*

Age, mean [±SD]

76.7 [±7.2]

72.9 [±18.1]

NA

0.9

Male sex

2 (16.7)

3 (42.9)

0.3 (0.02–3.5)

0.31

Nursing home resident

6 (50)

1 (14.3)

5.5 (0.4–320.4)

0.17

Hospital-acquired

5 (41.7)

0 (0)

NA

0.11

Community-acquired

7 (58.3)

7 (100)

NA

0.11

Non-healthcare-associated

2 (16.7)

3 (42.8)

0.3 (0.02–3.5)

0.31

Antibiotics use within the previous 3 months

4 (40)a

4 (57)

1.1 (0.1–11.6)

1.0

Underlying diseases related to the urinary tract

2 (16.7)

3 (42.9)

0.3 (0.02–3.5)

0.31

History of UTI

8 (66.7)

2 (28.6)

4.6 (0.5–69.2)

0.17

Urinary catheter use

4 (33.3)

1 (14.3)

2.8 (0.2–171.8)

0.6

Previous hospital days, mean

[SD]

90 [±156.6]

0

NA

0.06

Any immunosuppressive conditionb

9 (75)

4 (57)

2.2 (0.2–24.7)

0.62

Diabetes mellitus

3 (25)

1 (14.3)

1.9 (0.1–122.1)

1.0

Malignancy

1 (8.3)

4 (57.1)

0.1 (0.001–1.2)

0.04

Pitt bacteraemia score, median [IQR]

4 [2–5]

3 [2–4]

NA

0.57

Causative bacteria species

 Escherichia coli

11 (91.7)

6 (85.7)

1.8 (0.02–156.6)

1.0

 Klebsiella pneumoniae

1 (8.3)

1 (14.3)

0.6 (0.006–49.9)

1.0

 Use of CBP as definitive therapy

9 (75)

2 (29)

21.1 (1.4–1395.7)

0.01

  1. Data were compared between groups treated with empirical treatments (carbapenem vs. non-carbapenem beta-lactam). Values are number (%) unless otherwise indicated
  2. ESBL, extended-spectrum beta-lactamase; CBP, carbapenem; non-CBPBL, non-carbapenem beta-lactam; OR, odds ratio; CI, confidence interval; SD, standard deviation; UTI, urinary tract infection; IQR, interquartile range; NA, not available
  3. * The sample size was not large enough to conduct accurate statistical analysis; thus, caution is necessary when interpreting the results
  4. aInformation was available for only 10 patients
  5. bAny of the following: use of immunosuppressive agents, presence of diabetes mellitus, malignancy, or chronic renal failure