Tags

Type your tag names separated by a space and hit enter

A midstream urine collector is not a good alternative to a sterile collection method during the diagnosis of urinary tract infection.
Acta Paediatr. 2015 Sep; 104(9):e395-400.AP

Abstract

AIM

Guidelines recommend collecting urine with suprapubic aspiration or urethral catheterisation in infants with a suspected urinary tract infection (UTI), but the invasiveness of these methods continues to drive research on new urine collection devices. We studied children with a suspected UTI, who had not been toilet trained, to compare a new midstream urine collector and catheterisation.

METHOD

During this prospective controlled diagnosis study of 94 children, urine collection was performed using the midstream collector and then controlled via catheterisation when the urine dipstick was positive.

RESULTS

When end stream samples collected by the midstream collector were compared to catheter samples, the results were inconsistent in 23.4% of cases, similar to the inconsistent results between first stream samples discarded by the device and the catheter samples (21.3%). Interestingly, the overall rate of sample contamination in the bag of the midstream collector was lower than that reported in previously published studies and there were no false positive bag results.

CONCLUSION

The midstream collector did not appear to provide additional benefits to classic collection bags. A sterile collection method, such as suprapubic aspiration, catheterisation or clean catch, is still mandatory for diagnosing urinary tract infections in children who are not toilet trained.

Links

Publisher Full Text (DOI)

Authors+Show Affiliations

Verliat-Guinaud J
Service de pédiatrie, Centre Hospitalier Gabriel Martin, Saint-Paul, France.
Blanc P
Service de pédiatrie, Hôpital Intercommunal, Poissy, France.
Garnier F
Service de Bactériologie-Virologie-Hygiène, CHU de Limoges, Limoges, France. UMR-S 1092, Université de Limoges, Limoges, France.
Gajdos V
Service de pédiatrie, Hôpital Antoine Béclère, AP-HP, Clamart, France. Inserm U1018, Centre de recherche en Épidémiologie et Santé des Populations, Villejuif, France. Université Paris Sud, Kremlin Bicêtre, France.
Guigonis V
Service de Pédiatrie et CHREC, CHU de Limoges, Limoges, France. UMR CNRS 7276, Université de Limoges, Limoges, France.

MeSH

Child, PreschoolEmergency Service, HospitalEquipment DesignFemaleHumansInfantInfant, NewbornMalePredictive Value of TestsProspective StudiesReproducibility of ResultsUrinary CatheterizationUrinary Tract InfectionsUrine Specimen Collection

Pub Type(s)

Controlled Clinical Trial
Journal Article

Language

eng

PubMed ID

25857456

Citation

Verliat-Guinaud, J, et al. "A Midstream Urine Collector Is Not a Good Alternative to a Sterile Collection Method During the Diagnosis of Urinary Tract Infection." Acta Paediatrica (Oslo, Norway : 1992), vol. 104, no. 9, 2015, pp. e395-400.
Verliat-Guinaud J, Blanc P, Garnier F, et al. A midstream urine collector is not a good alternative to a sterile collection method during the diagnosis of urinary tract infection. Acta Paediatr. 2015;104(9):e395-400.
Verliat-Guinaud, J., Blanc, P., Garnier, F., Gajdos, V., & Guigonis, V. (2015). A midstream urine collector is not a good alternative to a sterile collection method during the diagnosis of urinary tract infection. Acta Paediatrica (Oslo, Norway : 1992), 104(9), e395-400. https://doi.org/10.1111/apa.13019
Verliat-Guinaud J, et al. A Midstream Urine Collector Is Not a Good Alternative to a Sterile Collection Method During the Diagnosis of Urinary Tract Infection. Acta Paediatr. 2015;104(9):e395-400. PubMed PMID: 25857456.
* Article titles in AMA citation format should be in sentence-case
TY - JOUR T1 - A midstream urine collector is not a good alternative to a sterile collection method during the diagnosis of urinary tract infection. AU - Verliat-Guinaud,J, AU - Blanc,P, AU - Garnier,F, AU - Gajdos,V, AU - Guigonis,V, Y1 - 2015/05/04/ PY - 2014/12/14/received PY - 2015/03/11/revised PY - 2015/04/07/accepted PY - 2015/4/11/entrez PY - 2015/4/11/pubmed PY - 2016/6/9/medline KW - Collection bags KW - Urethral catheterisation KW - Urinary tract infection diagnosis KW - Urine collection SP - e395 EP - 400 JF - Acta paediatrica (Oslo, Norway : 1992) JO - Acta Paediatr VL - 104 IS - 9 N2 - AIM: Guidelines recommend collecting urine with suprapubic aspiration or urethral catheterisation in infants with a suspected urinary tract infection (UTI), but the invasiveness of these methods continues to drive research on new urine collection devices. We studied children with a suspected UTI, who had not been toilet trained, to compare a new midstream urine collector and catheterisation. METHOD: During this prospective controlled diagnosis study of 94 children, urine collection was performed using the midstream collector and then controlled via catheterisation when the urine dipstick was positive. RESULTS: When end stream samples collected by the midstream collector were compared to catheter samples, the results were inconsistent in 23.4% of cases, similar to the inconsistent results between first stream samples discarded by the device and the catheter samples (21.3%). Interestingly, the overall rate of sample contamination in the bag of the midstream collector was lower than that reported in previously published studies and there were no false positive bag results. CONCLUSION: The midstream collector did not appear to provide additional benefits to classic collection bags. A sterile collection method, such as suprapubic aspiration, catheterisation or clean catch, is still mandatory for diagnosing urinary tract infections in children who are not toilet trained. SN - 1651-2227 UR - https://www.unboundmedicine.com/medline/citation/25857456/A_midstream_urine_collector_is_not_a_good_alternative_to_a_sterile_collection_method_during_the_diagnosis_of_urinary_tract_infection_ DB - PRIME DP - Unbound Medicine ER -