Abstract
This retrospective study tried to find the potential approach for reducing the urinary tract infection (UTI) in intensive care patients (ICPs) among adult population.
In total, 96 eligible ICP cases were included. Of these, 48 cases received 10% povidone-iodine and were assigned to the intervention group, while the other 48 cases underwent sterile water, and were assigned to the control group for the prevention of catheter-associated UTI before indwelling urinary catheter insertion in ICP. The primary outcome was the occurrence of an UTI after the indwelling catheter. The secondary outcome was the identification of pathogenic species. The outcomes were assessed after catheter removed.
After catheter removal, the occurrence of an UTI did not differ significantly between the 2 groups (P = .34). In addition, no significant differences regarding the pathogenic species were detected between the 2 groups (Escherichia coli, P = .73; Candida albicans, P = .57; Enterococcus, P = .65; Proteus mirabilis, P = .50; Citrobacter, P = .50; Klebsiella pneumoniae, P = .57).
The use of 10% povidone-iodine may not help reducing UTI in ICP.
Keywords: effectiveness, intensive care patients, urinary tract infection
1. Introduction
Urinary tract infection (UTI) is one of the most common complications in intensive care patients (ICPs).[1–3] It has been reported that this condition accounts for up to 40% of the 2 million hospital-acquired infections each year.[4,5] Of these, UTI is the most common hospital-acquired infections.[6–8] Its incidence is reported to vary from 3.1 to 6.4 catheter-associated UTI per 1000 catheter-days.[9] Furthermore, 60% to 80% of UTI results from the presence of indwelling urinary catheters.[10,11] Previous study also reported that the risk of UTI increases when the using of catheter increases, for example, 5% daily risk for the development of UTI if a patient has an indwelling urinary catheter.[12,13]
Under such situation, cleansing the periurethral area thoroughly before applying an indwelling urinary catheter is very important.[14,15] The US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) strongly recommends to use soapy water, and distilled water or povidone-iodine, for sterilizing the periurethral area before catheter performance.[16] However, the results of previous studies have been contradictory.[17,18] Some studies have reported that this approach was not effective in decreasing the UTI rate, while other studies found a significant difference in UTI rate with such approach.[17,18] Moreover, limited data are still available of such approach for Chinese ICP. Thus, in this retrospective study, we tried to find the potential approach for reducing the UTI in ICP among Chinese adult population.
2. Methods
2.1. Design
This retrospective study included 96 eligible ICP cases. Of these, the 48 cases in the intervention group received 10% povidone-iodine, while the other 48 subjects in the control group underwent sterile water. All outcomes were evaluated after the indwelling urinary catheters removed.
The study was conducted at Xinjiang Uygur Autonomous Region People's Hospital from between December 2015 and August 2017. It was approved by the Medical Ethical Committee of The People's Hospital of Xinjiang Uygur Autonomous Region. All included cases provided informed written consent. All cases were selected from the intensive care unit (ICU) department at The People's Hospital of Xinjiang Uygur Autonomous Region.
2.2. Inclusion and exclusion criteria
Patient cases were included if they had an indwelling urinary catheter more than 48 hours in place during the period of their stay in the ICU. All patients were aged between 31 and 78 years. However, cases were excluded if they did not have an indwelling urinary catheter or stayed in the ICU less than 5 days. In addition, the cases were also excluded if they had insufficient information of all characteristic values and outcome data.
2.3. Intervention
All patients in both groups were cleaned with soap and water at the periurethral area initially. In addition, patients in the intervention group were further cleaned with 10% povidone-iodine solution. Patients in the control group were further cleaned with sterile water. After that, all patients were cleansed with sterile water–saturated sterile pads before the indwelling urinary catheter.
2.4. Outcome measurements
The primary outcome was measured by the occurrence of an UTI after the indwelling catheter.[19] The secondary outcome was measured by the identification of pathogenic species.[20] The urine culture was collected on the first day of admission to the ICU. Then, it was operated every 3 days until the indwelling catheter was removed. Urine culture was performed by the microbiological laboratory. The outcomes were measured and assessed after catheter removed.
2.5. Statistical analysis
All data were analyzed by using SPSS software (SPSS V.19.0; IBM Corp., Armonk, NY). Of these, t test was applied to analyze the normally distributed continuous data, while Mann–Whitney U-test was utilized for non-normally distributed data. In additionally, χ2 test was used to analyze the categorical data. A statistical significance was defined as P < .05.
3. Results
The characteristics of all patient cases are listed in Table 1. No significant differences regarding all demographic and clinical variables differed between 2 groups in this retrospective study.
Table 1.
Patient characteristics.
After catheter removed, the occurrence of an UTI in the intervention group did not significantly differ with that in the control group (P = .34, Table 2). Furthermore, there were not significant differences of the pathogenic species between 2 groups (Escherichia coli, P = .73; Candida albicans, P = .57; Enterococcus, P = .65; Proteus mirabilis, P = .50; Citrobacter, P = .50; Klebsiella pneumoniae, P = .57; Table 3).
Table 2.
Comparison of primary outcome measurements between 2 groups.
Table 3.
Comparison of urinary tract infection pathogens.
4. Discussion
To our best knowledge, there is still insufficient evidence to support that 10% povidone-iodine in ICP that may help to reduce the occurrence of an UTI after catheter indwelling. Although a previous study specifically addressed this study, it explored the effect of 10% povidone-iodine among the pediatric population.[21] That study tried to assess the efficacy of periurethral cleaning with 10% povidone-iodine, 0.05% chlorhexidine gluconate, and sterile water for the prevention of UTI before the indwelling urinary catheter operation.[21] Its results did not find significant differences in the reduction of the occurrence of an UTI among 3 inventions before the indwelling urinary catheter insertion.[21]
In this retrospective study, it investigated the potential approach for reducing the UTI in ICP among adult population. It compared the effect of 10% povidone-iodine with sterile water in preventing catheter-associated UTI before indwelling urinary catheter insertion in ICP among the Chinese adult population.
The results of this retrospective study demonstrated that patients who underwent 10% povidone-iodine did not show better outcomes in the occurrence of an UTI, as well as the pathogenic species, compared with patients who received sterile water in preventing catheter-associated UTI before the indwelling urinary catheter. It indicates that 10% povidone-iodine may be not beneficial for ICP receiving indwelling urinary catheter for the prevention of UTI.
This study suffered from several following limitations. At first, this study was only conducted at 1 center of Xinjiang Uygur Autonomous Region People's Hospital, which may impact the generalizability of our findings to the other centers. Then, the sample size of this study is relatively small, which may affect the results of this study.
Furthermore, the outcome measurements were not comprehensive, because all the available outcome data from this study were only based on the completed patient cases. Finally, the present retrospective study did not involve any procedures of randomization and blinding, which may result in a high risk of case selection.
5. Conclusion
The results of this study showed that the administration of 10% povidone-iodine may not reduce the occurrence of an UTI in ICP during the study period.
Author contributions
Conceptualization: Dong Xiao, Yan Liu, Xiao-hui Shi.
Data curation: Yan Liu, Xiao-hui Shi.
Formal analysis: Xiao-hui Shi.
Investigation: Yan Liu.
Methodology: Yan Liu, Xiao-hui Shi.
Project administration: Dong Xiao.
Resources: Dong Xiao, Yan Liu.
Software: Xiao-hui Shi.
Supervision: Dong Xiao.
Validation: Dong Xiao, Yan Liu.
Visualization: Dong Xiao, Yan Liu.
Writing – original draft: Dong Xiao, Yan Liu, Xiao-hui Shi.
Writing – review & editing: Dong Xiao, Yan Liu, Xiao-hui Shi.
Footnotes
Abbreviations: CDC = Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, ICP = intensive care patients, ICU = intensive care unit, UTI = urinary tract infection.
The authors declare that they have no competing interests.
‘the author(s) of this work have nothing to disclose’.
References
- [1].Galiczewski JM, Shurpin KM. An intervention to improve the catheter associated urinary tract infection rate in a medical intensive care unit: Direct observation of catheter insertion procedure. Intensive Crit Care Nurs 2017;40:26–34. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [2].Kumar N, Singh Y, Yadav G, et al. Role of neomycin polymyxin sulfate solution bladder wash for prevention of catheter associated urinary tract infection in traumatic brain injury patient admitted to Intensive Care Unit: a prospective randomized study. Int J Crit Illn Inj Sci 2018;8:17–21. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [3].Malt G, Robertson-Malt SA. Rapid Quality Control Initiative to reduce the incidence of urinary tract infection in the paediatric intensive care patient: part one. Int J Nurs Pract 2007;13:348–53. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [4].Salgado CD, Karchmer TB, Farr BM. Wenzel RP. Prevention of catheter associated urinary tract infection. Prevention and Control of Nosocomial Infections 4th ed.Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2003. 297–311. [Google Scholar]
- [5].Foxman B. Epidemiology of urinary tract infections: incidence, morbidity, and economic costs. Am J Med 2002;8:5–13. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [6].Kalsi J, Arya M, Wilson P, Mundy A. Hospital-acquired urinary tract infection. Int J Clin Pract 2003;57:388–91. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [7].Gray M. Reducing catheter-associated urinary tract infection in the critical care unit. AACN Adv Crit Care 2010;21:247–57. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [8].Vasilyev AO, Govorov AV, Shiryaev AA, Pushkar DY. The role of the uretral catheter in the development of catheter- related urinary tract infection. Urologiia 2017. 107–11. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [9].Edwards JR, Peterson KD, Banerjee S, et al. National Healthcare Safety Network (NHSN) report: data summary for 2006 through, issued December 2009. Am J Infect Control 2009;37:783–805. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [10].Flores-Gonzaleza JC, Hernandez-Gonzaleza A, Rodriguez-Lopeza C, et al. Nosocomial urinary tract infection in critical pediatric patients. Med Intensiva 2011;35:344–8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [11].Arda B, Ates¸ K, Bakýr M, et al. Uriner kateter infeksiyonlarýnýn önlenmesi kýlavuzu. Hastane Infeksiyonlarý Dergisi 2012;16:1–8. [Google Scholar]
- [12].Trautner BW. Management of catheter-associated urinary tract infection. Curr Opin Infect Dis 2010;23:76–82. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [13].Tambyah PA, Knasinski V, Maki DG. The direct costs of nosocomial catheter-associated urinary tract infection in the era of managed care. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2002;23:27–31. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [14].Hu B, Tao L, Rosenthal VD, et al. Device-associated infection rates, device use, length of stay, and mortality in intensive care units of 4 Chinese hospitals: International Nosocomial Control Consortium findings. Am J Infect Control 2013;41:301–6. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [15].Al-Farsi S, Oliva M, Davidson R, et al. Periurethral cleaning prior to urinary catheterization in children: sterile water versus 10% povidone-iodine. Clin Pediatr 2009;48:656–60. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [16].Wong E, Hooton T. Guidelines for the Prevention of Catheter-Associated Urinary Tract Infections. Guidelines for the Prevention and Control of Nosocomial Infections. Atlanta, GA: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; 1982. Published 2008. Available at: http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/dhqp/gl_catheter_assoc.html. Accessed January 10, 2018. [Google Scholar]
- [17].Webster J, Hood RH, Burridge CA, et al. Water or antiseptic for periurethral cleaning before urinary catheterization: a randomized controlled trial. Am J Infect Control 2001;29:389–94. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [18].Cheung K, Leung P, Wong YC, et al. Water versus antiseptic periurethral cleansing before catheterization among home care patients: a randomized controlled trial. Am J Infect Control 2008;36:375–80. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [19].Chenoweth C, Saint S. Preventing catheter-associated urinary tract infections in the intensive care unit. Crit Care Clin 2013;29:19–32. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [20].Nicolle LE. Catheter associated urinary tract infections. Antimicrob Resist Infect Control 2014;3:23. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [21].Düzkaya DS, Uysal G, Bozkurt G, et al. Povidone-iodine, 0.05% chlorhexidine gluconate, or water for periurethral cleaning before indwelling urinary catheterization in a pediatric intensive care: a randomized controlled trial. J Wound Ostomy Continence Nurs 2017;44:84–8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]