Table 2.

Resistance rates of the five most commonly isolated uropathogens from patients living in nursing homes (NH) compared to community dwelling elderly (CD) in Vestfold County, Norway 2010

	E coli			E faecalis a			K pneumoniae			P mirabilis			P aeruginosa
	NH	CD		NH	CD		NH	CD		NH	CD		NH	CD
	n (%)	n (%)	p-value	n (%)	n (%)	p-value	n (%)	n (%)	p-value	n (%)	n (%)	p-value	n (%)	n (%)	p-value
Ampicillinb	48 (32)	732 (32)	0.95	0	0		Resc	Res		2 (17)	14 (11)	0.63	Res	Res
Ciprofloxacind	14 (10)	175 (8)	0.08	NAe	NAe		2 (18)	7 (3)	0.07	3 (25)	7 (5)	0.04h	0 (0)	5 (9)	0.6
Mecillinam	4 (3)	83 (3.6)	0.82	NAf	NAf		1 (9)	16 (8)	0.62	1 (8)	6 (5)	0.51	Res	Res
Nitrofurantoin	3 (2)	39 (2)	0.76	0	0		Res	Res		Res	Res		Res	Res
Trimethoprimg	36 (24)	513 (23)	0.1	6 (32)	93 (27)	0.69	1 (9)	39 (19)	0.46	3 (25)	23 (18)	0.79	Res	Res

^aResistance rate for Vancomycin was 0 % in both groups

^bFor E coli, and P mirabilis intermediate (I) is classified as sensitive (S) according to recommendations from Norwegian Working Group on Antibiotics

^cRes: Resistant

^d(S) classified as (I) if the microbe in question is resistant (R) for nalidixic acid

^eNA: not applicable. Minimum inhibitory concentrations are so high that ciprofloxacin is not recommended for infections due to E Faecalis

^fNA: not applicable. Mecillinam is ineffective against E Faecalis in vitro

^gFor E faecalis intermediate (I) is classified as sensitive (S)

^hSignificant at α = 5 %