Next Article in Journal
Gut Microbiota and Metabolism in Different Stages of Life and Health
Previous Article in Journal
Current Production Capability of Drug-Resistant Pathogen Enables Its Rapid Label-Free Detection Applicable to Wastewater-Based Epidemiology
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Microorganisms
Volume 10
Issue 2
10.3390/microorganisms10020473
microorganisms-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Urinary Tract Infections and Associated Factors among Patients with Indwelling Urinary Catheters Attending Bugando Medical Centre a Tertiary Hospital in Northwestern Tanzania

by
Asteria L. M. Ndomba
1,*,
Rose M. Laisser
1,
Vitus Silago
2,
Benson R. Kidenya
3,
Joseph Mwanga
4,
Jeremiah Seni
2 and
Stephen E. Mshana
2
1
Archbishop Anthony Mayala School of Nursing, Catholic University of Health and Allied Sciences, Mwanza P.O. Box 1464, Tanzania
2
Department of Microbiology and Immunology, Weill Bugando School of Medicine, Catholic University of Health and Allied Sciences, Mwanza P.O. Box 1464, Tanzania
3
Department of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, Weill Bugando School of Medicine, Catholic University of Health and Allied Sciences, Mwanza P.O. Box 1464, Tanzania
4
Department of Biostatistics, Epidemiology and Behavioral Sciences, Weill Bugando School of Medicine, Catholic University of Health and Allied Sciences, Mwanza P.O. Box 1464, Tanzania
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Microorganisms 2022, 10(2), 473; https://doi.org/10.3390/microorganisms10020473
Submission received: 23 January 2022 / Revised: 8 February 2022 / Accepted: 10 February 2022 / Published: 21 February 2022
(This article belongs to the Section Medical Microbiology)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Complications of indwelling urinary catheterization (IUC) are associated with significant morbidity and mortality, thus affecting patient’s well-being. Understanding the magnitude and factors associated with complications is crucial in designing appropriate preventive strategies. A cross-sectional study was conducted at Bugando Medical Centre, involving patients with long-term and short-term IUC from December 2016 to September 2017. The data were analyzed by STATA 13.0. Catheter-associated urinary tract infection (CA-UTI) was the leading (56.8%; 250/440) complication among patients with IUC. Gram-negative bacteria were predominantly isolated (98.1%, 252/257), whereas E. coli (30.7%, 79/257) and Klebsiella spp. (29.6%, 76/257) were the leading pathogens. CA-UTI was significantly higher among out-patients than in-patients (82.2% v 35.3%, p < 0.001). Older age (OR: 1.3, (95%CI: 1.1–1.5), p < 0.001), level of education (OR: 1.8, (95%CI: 1.1–3.1), p = 0.029) and catheter duration of ≥6 weeks (OR: 2.43, (95%CI: 1.1–5.5), p = 0.031) independently predicted CA-UTI among outpatients, while female gender (OR: 2.1, (95%CI: 1.2–3.7), p = 0.014), catheter bags not freely hanging (OR: 0.4, (95%CI: 0.2–0.7), p = 0.002) and residing outside Mwanza region (OR: 0.4, (95%CI: 0.2–0.6), p < 0.001) predicted CA-UTI among in-patients. CA-UTI is the common complication among patients with IUC, significantly higher in out-patients than in-patients. We recommend involving patients and carers in infection prevention and control measures in out-patients living with IUC.

1. Introduction

Complications of indwelling urinary catheterization (IUC) affect patients’ well-being, mostly physically, psychologically and socially [1]. Common complications documented in several studies include catheter blockages, leakage, urethral hemorrhage, urethritis, bladder spasms, bladder calculi, vesicoureteral reflux and over the years bladder cancer [2,3]. However, the most frequent and serious complication is the catheter-associated urinary tract infection (CA-UTI), which is associated with reduced quality of life, increased risk of hospitalization and increased mortality [4].
CA-UTI accounts for up to 25% of healthcare-associated infections and is the most common complication for both patients with short- and long-term IUCs [5,6,7]. Gram-negative bacteria (GNB), notably Escherichia coli, Klebsiella species (i.e., K. aerogenes), Proteus mirabilis and Pseudomonas aeruginosa, and Gram positive bacteria (GPB), mostly Staphylococcus aureus and Enterococcus species, are predominantly isolated causing CA-UTI [8,9,10,11]. Although E.coli and Klebsiella spp. are the most frequently involved bacteria, and the reservoir is the patient’s own gut microbiota, the multi-drug resistant (MDR) strains are acquired elsewhere [12,13,14]. Sometimes, patients with IUC acquire these superbugs as nosocomial infections. [15].
Increased patient’s age and duration of catheterization, severe illness, obesity, immunocompromised status, frequent clinics or hospital visits and hospitalization are among the factors reported to increase the risks of CA-UTI [2,16]. Studies have reported that IUC is more common among older women and men, as well as being more common in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) [17,18,19]. A recent study from Tanzania reported a prevalence of 9.6% of long-term IUC among out-patients [20]. The longer the catheter is in situ, the higher the risk of developing CA-UTI [6,7,21,22].
It is estimated that 8.5–10% of patients with IUC develop CA-UTI in developed countries, while as many as 42–50% of patients with IUC develop CA-UTI in LMICs [23,24,25]. The reasons for the high CA-UTI in LMIC could possibly be due to poor infection prevention practices, a poor socioeconomic status to pay for health care services, inadequate health care infrastructure and the lack of stringent policies in place, compared to developed countries that enforce the use of IUC only when indicated and removed as soon as possible [20,26,27]. In Tanzania, there is limited information on the complications associated with IUC. Therefore, to our knowledge, this is the first study to investigate CA-UTI and the associated factors among patients living with short- and long-term IUC at Bugando Medical Center (BMC), a tertiary hospital in northwestern Tanzania.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Study Design, Duration and Settings

This was a cross-sectional analytical study conducted between December 2016 and September 2017 at Bugando Medical Center (BMC), a tertiary hospital in northwestern Tanzania. BMC serves as the Zonal Referral Hospital for eight Lake Zone regions, namely Mwanza, Simiyu, Mara, Kagera, Shinyanga, Geita, Tabora and Kigoma, with an estimated population of 13 million people. BMC has an estimated capacity of 1000 beds.

2.2. Study Population, Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria

The study population included adult patients, ≥18 years, with IUC out-patients attending urology clinics and in-patients admitted to the medical, surgical, urology, gynecology, oncology wards, and the intensive care unit at BMC, in Mwanza, Tanzania. The minimum sample size for the study was 384, calculated by using the Kish–Leslie formula (1965) using a prevalence of 50%. Long term IUC according to our study was defined as having an indwelling Foley’s urinary catheter >14 days continuously; these were the out-patients. This is supported by evidence-based guidelines for best practice in urological health care [28]. Therefore, in-patients included a population of participants with short-term IUC, while out-patients made a population of participants with long-term IUC. During the study period, about 2112 out-patients with different conditions, including those with indwelling urinary catheters, attended the urology clinics. Only 202 out-patients with a long-term IUC met the inclusion criteria and were enrolled. For in-patients, 238 patients were eligible and enrolled in the study making a total of 440 participants (202 out-patients and 238 in-patients). To ensure that the enrolled participants were not duplicated, a unique identification mark was attached to the file of each participant once enrolled.

2.3. Determination and Definition of Complications

In this study, complications were determined as the presence of problems that a patient experienced after the insertion of a catheter in the bladder, such as UTI, blockage, bleeding and leakage. These complications were objectively observed and confirmed (e.g., CA-UTI) by the researchers as defined below:
CA-UTI was defined as a patient with symptoms (e.g., fever, urinary frequency or urgency, dysuria and suprapubic tenderness), having an indwelling urinary catheter for more than 2 days by the date of sampling and urine culture with more than 105 CFU/mL of one bacterial species [29].
Urine blockage was defined as the catheter that was not draining any urine into the catheter bag [30], while urine leakage was defined as the inability urine flow through the catheter that results from the buildup of the crystalline material due to biofilm formation on the luminal surfaces of the catheter tube. As a consequence, urine often leaks along the outside of the catheter and patients become incontinent [30].
Bleeding was defined as the passage of blood stained urine into the catheter bag, mostly caused by crystalline biofilms formed outside the catheter, leading to the irritation and trauma of the urethral mucosa leading to bleeding [31].

2.4. Data and Sample Collection

Socio-demographic (e.g., age, sex, education level and residence) and clinical related (e.g., catheter type, catheter size, and duration of catheterization) information were collected by using structured questionnaires and reviews of the patients’ medical records. About 10 mL of urine samples was collected using a sterile container from the catheter tube from each patient for quantitative culture. Briefly, the catheter tube was clamped proximally to the urethral or suprapubic opening to allow for the collection of fresh voided urine. The site of aspiration in the catheter tube was cleaned using 70% alcohol. A sterile needle and syringe was used to aspirate about 10 mL of urine sample from the catheter tube into a sterile and labeled urine container. Urine samples were sent to the Microbiology Laboratory at the Catholic University of Health and Allied Sciences (CUHAS) for processing within 2 h of collection in a cool box with ice packs maintaining a temperature ranging from 2 °C to 8 °C.

2.5. Laboratory Procedures

2.5.1. Urine Culture

Urine samples were directly and quantitatively inoculated on 5% sheep blood agar (SBA; Oxoid, UK) and MacConkey agar (MCA; Oxoid, UK) plates. Plates were incubated aerobically at 37 °C for 24 h. All samples with significant growth, ≥105 CFU/mL, isolates were identified to possible species level by using in-house prepared biochemical identification media (Gram stain, catalase, coagulase, DNase, novobiocin disc, bile aesculin agar, TSI agar, SIM agar, Simmons citrate agar, Christensen’s urea agar, and oxidase), as reported previously [32,33], followed by antibiotics susceptibility testing as recommended by Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute (CLSI) guidelines [34].

2.5.2. Antibiotics Susceptibility Testing and Phenotypic Detection of Extended Spectrum β-Lactamase Production in E. coli and Klebsiella spp.

The Kirby Bauer disc diffusion technique was used for antibiotics susceptibility testing (AST). Briefly, test bacteria were suspended in sterile physiological saline 0.85% to obtain a turbidity equivalent to 0.5 McFarland turbidity standard. Then, the surfaces of Mueller Hinton agar (MHA; Oxoid, UK) plates were swabbed to obtain even lawns and antibiotic discs were seeded within 15 min. For Gram-negative bacteria, nitrofurantoin 300 (F 300), ciprofloxacin 5 µg (CIP 5 µg), ampicillin 30 µg (AMP 30 µg), gentamicin 10 µg (CN 10 µg), amoxicillin-clavulanic acid 30 µg (AMC 30 µg), ceftriaxone 30 µg (CRO 30 µg), ceftazidime 30 µg (CAZ 30 µg), trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole 25 µg (SXT 25 µg) and meropenem 10 µg (MEM 10 µg) were seeded, whereas for Gram positive bacteria, vancomycin 30 µg (VA 30 µg), gentamicin 10 µg (CN 10 µg), tetracycline 30 µg (TE 30 µg), erythromycin 30 µg (E 30 µg), cefoxitin 30 µg (FOX 30 µg), ciprofloxacin 5 µg (CIP 5 µg) and nitrofurantoin 300 (F 300) were seeded. All antibiotic discs used were from Oxoid, UK. Plates of MHA were incubated aerobically at 37 °C for 24 h. The zones of inhibition around the antibiotic discs were measured in millimeters and interpreted as susceptible, intermediate and resistant using Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute (CLSI) [34]. The production of extended spectrum β-lactamase (ESBL) was tested using the CLSI disc combination method. Isolate showing an increased zone of inhibition of ≥5 mm between cephalosporin discs with clavulanic acid and without clavulanic acid was phenotypically confirmed as an ESBL producer [34].

2.6. Quality Control

E. coli ATCC 25922 and S. aureus ATCC 25923 were used as control organisms.

2.7. Statistical Analysis

Quantitative data were entered into Microsoft Excel for cleaning and coding, then into STATA software version 13.0 for analysis. Descriptive statistics, such as percentages and frequencies, were used for categorical variables, whereas the median (inter quartile range (IQR)) was used for continuous variables. Univariate and multivariate logistic regression, as well as Generalized Linear Model analysis, were used to determine the factors associated with the complications. The variables that showed a significant p-value (<0.05) in the univariate analysis were subjected to multivariate logistic regression.

2.8. Ethical Considerations

This study was ethically cleared by the joint Catholic University of Health and Allied Sciences (CUHAS) and Bugando Medical Centre (BMC) Research Ethics and Review Committee with the ethical clearance certificate number CREC.152/2016. Permission to conduct this study was sought from the Bugando Medical Centre’s administration. Participants were requested to sign informed consent forms before being enrolled in this study. Participants’ related information were stored anonymously by using unique identifying numbers to ensure confidentiality throughout the study.

3. Results

3.1. Socio-Demographic and Clinical Characteristics of Participants with Short-Term IUC (In-Patients) and Long-Term IUC (Out-Patients)

A total of 440 (202 with long-term IUC and 238 with short-term IUC) participants were enrolled. Out-patients with long-term IUC were older than in-patients with short-term IUC, 69 (IQR: 61–77) years vs. 46 (IQR: 30–62) years, p < 0.001. Significantly, more males were enrolled in the out-patients group than in-patients (96.0% vs. 55.5%, p < 0.001) (Table 1). The majority of participants had urethral catheterization (59.4% out-patients and 95.8% in-patients), although among those with supra-pubic catheterization, the majority were out-patients rather than in-patients (40.6% vs. 4.2%, p < 0.001). Among those with long-term IUC (out-patients), the majority changed catheters at least once (61.0% vs. 39.1%, p < 0.001). Significantly, the out-patients with long-term IUC had benign prostatic hypertrophy (BPH), compared with in-patients with short-term IUC (60.4% vs. 3.8%, p < 0.001). The majority of participants with IUC had no other comorbidities (65.3% out-patients and 65.1% in-patients) (Table 2).

3.2. Prevalence and Pathogens Causing Catheter-Associated Urinary Tract Infection (CA-UTI) among Participants with Short-Term and Long-Term IUC

The overall prevalence of laboratory-confirmed CA-UTI among patients with IUC was 56.8% (250/440). Patients with long-term IUC had a significantly higher prevalence of CA-UTI than patients with short-term IUC (82.2% (166/202) vs. 35.3% (84/238) p < 0.001), (Figure 1). Seven patients had dual bacterial growth, resulting in a total of 257 isolates. Gram-negative rods (GNRs) were predominantly isolated (98.1%, 252/257), whereas E. coli (30.7%, 79/257) and Klebsiella spp. (29.6%, 76/257) were the leading causes of CA-UTI among patients with IUC. Only 1.9% (5/257) of isolates causing CA-UTI among patients with IUC at this setting were Gram-positive cocci (GPC) (Figure 2).

3.3. Percentages Resistance of Bacteria Causing CA-UTI among Patients with Short-Term and Long-Term IUC

The general percentage resistance of E. coli causing CA-UTI among patients with short-term and long-term IUC were 94.6% ampicillin, 84.8% trimethoprim/sulfamethoxazole, 43.0% gentamicin, 50.6% ciprofloxacin, 55.4% ceftriaxone, 50.7% ceftazidime, and 35.4% nitrofurantoin, whereas the general percentage resistance of Klebsiella spp. causing CA-UTI among patients with short-term and long-term IUC were 100% ampicillin, 82.9% trimethoprim/sulfamethoxazole, 31.6% gentamicin, 32.9% ciprofloxacin, 47.4% ceftriaxone, 43.4% ceftazidime, and 46.1% nitrofurantoin. Moreover, other GNR exhibited a resistance of 73.1% ampicillin, 55.1% trimethoprim/sulfamethoxazole, 20.2% gentamicin, 31.3% ciprofloxacin, 33.3% ceftriaxone, 29.3% ceftazidime, and 40.4% nitrofurantoin. Generally, from this study, we observed that pathogens from in-patients were more resistant to antibiotics than pathogens from out-patients. There was no statistical significant difference of ESBL production between E. coli and Klebsiella spp. (50.6% vs. 47.4%, p = 0.3923) (Table 3).

3.4. Factors Associated with Complications among Patients with Short-Term and Long-Term IUC

As the duration increases, the risk of complications is found to increase (OR: 3.8; 95%CI: 2.8–5.2; p < 0.001) (Figure 3). On logistic regression analysis, for the patients with long-term IUC, the level of education (OR: 1.8; (95%CI: 1.1–3.1); p = 0.029) was significantly associated with complications and catheterization of ≥6 weeks, increases the risk of complications (OR: 1.9; (95%CI: 0.9–4.1); p = 0.080) (Table 4 and Figure 3). Among patients with short-term IUC: female gender (OR: 2.3; (95%CI: 1.3–3.9); p = 0.002), the catheter bag not hanging freely (OR: 0.4; (95%CI: 0.2–0.8); p < 0.001) and residing outside Mwanza region (OR: 0.3; (95%CI: 0.2–0.5); p < 0.001) were significantly associated with complications (Table 4).

4. Discussion

Urinary tract infections are some of the most common conditions in human medicine, affecting a large patient population to various extents, irrespective of age and gender. Community-acquired and nosocomial UTI should be considered as an essential factor of morbidity, a severe public health issue and an economic burden. The causative agents of UTI are diverse, especially in nosocomial settings (where prolonged catheterization and immunosuppression facilitate the occurrence of non-conventional urinary pathogens). These are sufficient reasons to report the prevalence and bacterial strains of UTIs on a regional basis. The article is the first to report such information for a large population.
The majority of participants enrolled in this study were married, males and significantly more among those with long-term (out-patients) IUC than with short term. For those with short-term catheterization, their catheters were removed immediately when the indication was resolved. This practice is well supported by evidence-based practice, which recommends removing the catheter as soon as possible when no longer needed [35,36], and thus prevents CA-UTI. Significantly, participants with long-term IUC were older than those with short-term IUC. This is due to the underlying physiological changes in the prostate gland that occur in older men, as is evidenced in this study, which shows that the majority had benign prostatic hypertrophy; they were elderly and above 60 years old, and had long-term catheterization, which subjected them to develop UTI. Furthermore, this study found that formal education level (i.e., patients who attained no formal education and/or primary education) was associated with the development of complications among participants with long-term IUC. This observation was also reported in previous studies [1,6,32,37,38]. Lack or little formal education means lacking the knowledge of general hygienic measures that aims at preventing and controlling infectious diseases, such as UTI. Other possible reasons for the higher prevalence of UTI in this group could possibly be due to the frequent visit to the health care setting, due to the complications the individuals were experiencing at home, such as blockage, leakage and bleeding, which predisposed them to a higher risk of developing CA-UTI. As documented by Gould et al. and Shiralizadeh et al., frequent clinics or hospital visits and hospitalization are among the factors reported to increase the risks of CA-UTI [2,16].
We also found that patients with long-term catheterization of ≥6 weeks had a two-fold risk of developing complications and as the duration in days increased, the risk of complications was also found to increase almost four times and it was statistically significant. Studies also report that the longer the catheter remains in situ, the higher the rate of bacteria colonizing the catheter bag and ascending in the drainage tubing towards the urinary bladder, resulting in CA-UTI [6,39]. Regarding the instructions on living with a catheter at home, the majority of the participants in this study were found to have not been instructed on how to manage their catheters at home and it was not statistically significant. However, according to evidence-based guidelines on good urological care practice, it is imperative that the patients and carers should be educated about catheters and the different types available, and be provided with information on all aspects of living with a catheter, from the mechanics of how it works, how to self-care and follow a hygienic regimen and prevent urinary tract infections (UTIs), blockages and leakages, to its effect on body image and maintaining normal daily life [35,40,41]. In regard to the catheter size, the majority of the study participants used size 16 Fr and it was noted to be statistically significant. However, on factors associated with complications, there was no statistical significance on the catheter size. Nevertheless, evidence-based practice recommends using the smallest size catheter 14–6 Fr that provides good drainage with a 5 mL balloon inflated with 10 cc sterile water to ensure balloon symmetry for easy drainage. Large catheters (>16 F) distend the urethra and can irreparably damage the urethra and bladder neck, as well as contribute to bladder spasms and leakage. Additionally, large bore catheters do not allow for the drainage of the peri-urethral glands, which can increase the risk of infection [41]. Therefore, with all of these observed factors, it is not surprising that out-patient participants had a high prevalence rate of CA-UTI 82.2% vs. 35.3% for the in-patients. The overall prevalence of CA-UTI in this study, which considered older participants, was higher than the results obtained in a study from Benin West Africa that enrolled younger participants between the ages of 50 to 69 who were catheterized, which observed a prevalence of 23.3% [42]. This may explain why we observed a higher prevalence of CA-UTI than the study conducted in Benin. However, our prevalence of CA-UTI is more or less equal to a study from Nigeria, which observed a prevalence of 88.5%.
On the other hand, for the in-patients of a female gender, as reported previously [25,29], a catheter bag not hanging freely and residing outside Mwanza were statistically found to be the risk factors for developing complications among participants with short-term IUC. The anatomy of women facilitates the development of UTI as bacteria have to travel a very short distance from the anus (the microbiota of the gastrointestinal tract) to reach and infect the bladder, especially if hygienic measures are not observed. A catheter bag not hanging freely was documented to be poor urological practice, which leads to acquiring UTIs. An example of the good practice of urological care, as recommended by the guidelines on the prevention of CAT-UTI, is keeping the collection bag below the level of the bladder at all times and not to rest the bag on the floor [2,35].
As in previous studies, catheter-associated urinary tract infection (CA-UTI) was also the most common complications among patients with IUC, 56.8% [37]. In this study, the other complications that were reported and/or observed were leakage, blockage and bleeding, as reported elsewhere [37,43,44]. Leakage (11.9% vs. 0.8%) and blockage (10.4% vs. 0.0%) were the more frequently observed complications, compared to the others, and were significantly higher among patients with long-term IUC compared to those with short-term IUC (p = 0.005). Our findings were lower compared to those by Wilde et al., who reported blockage and leakage among 34% and 67% of patients with long-term IUC, respectively, over a 12 month period of follow-up [45]. One half (56.8%) of the patients with IUC had laboratory-confirmed CA-UTI, which was significantly higher among patients with long-term catheterizations. As explained above, the longer the urinary catheter remains in situ, the higher the risk of CA-UTI from bacteria colonizing the urinary catheter bag. The prevalence of confirmed CA-UTI was significantly high compared to the prevalence in higher-income countries (HICs), the U.K. (4.76%) [46], Columbia (1.41%) [29], Australia (0.9%) [27], and England (8.5%) [47]. This could be attributed to the out-patients who had IUCs for a long-term period (≥6 weeks) outside healthcare facilities with no instructions on the proper handling of catheters at home, and infrequently changing the catheters. Catheter management in developed countries is mainly geared toward avoiding breaches in the drainage system by an adherence to a sterile closed method of urinary drainage and the maintenance of routine hygienic practices concerning the insertion site, including the use of warm soapy water, and more frequently if there is a build-up of secretions and the removal of the catheter if it is no longer needed. This practice is evident and has been shown to markedly reduce the risk of acquiring a catheter-associated infection [48]. In this study, the majority of the participants were observed to have very dirty catheter insertion sites with very hardened built-up secretions leading to UTIs.
The prevalence of CA-UTI among in-patients only in our study remains high, compared to the studies mentioned earlier—in the U.K., Columbia, Australia and England, which only enrolled in-patients. This may be due to under-improved healthcare services, notably infection prevention and control (IPC) measures in the majority of healthcare facilities in LMICs compared to HICs. Moreover, limited evidence-based literatures from LMICs limit strategies aiming at improving the lives of out-patients with IUC and healthcare services, including IPC measures among in-patients with IUC.
The majority of bacteria causing CA-UTI among patients with IUC were Gram-negative rods (GNRs) with the predominance of E. coli and Klebsiella spp. Our findings are similar to those found in the literature [12,49], which determined that GNR, notably E. coli and Klebsiella spp., are the most common causative agents of CA-UTI. These bacteria are usually from the patient’s own colonic resident microbiota with virulence factors associated with adhesion, motility, immune avoidance and biofilm formation [12,13,42]. These findings were also noted in a study conducted by Petronio et al., which determined that uropathogenic Escherichia coli (UPEC) is a heterogeneous group of extra intestinal pathogenic E. coli with several virulence factors that allow these bacteria to colonize the urinary tract and resist the host’s defense mechanisms. These virulence factors are distinctive and very different from those observed in other human microbial communities; among them are type 1 fimbriae and P fimbriae, which are present on the bacteria surface [50]. Poor hygiene on the insertion site was observed in most of the study participants, as there was a large build-up of secretions observed during sampling leading to CA-UTI
In general, GNB causing CA-UTI among patients with IUC showed higher and moderate resistance towards antibiotics of the first (i.e., ampicillin and trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole) and second (i.e., ceftriaxone) lines of treatment. This was also previously reported by the same facility, which determined that clinical isolates exhibit a high resistance against prophylactic antibiotics and those commonly administered empirically as first and second lines of treatments [51,52]. Furthermore, a similar study by Maharjan et al. observed a higher resistance of bacteria causing CA-UTI towards ampicillin, trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole and cephalosporin [53]. We also observed that bacteria pathogens causing CA-UTI among in-patients were more resistant to tested antibiotics, compared to bacteria pathogens causing CA-UTI among out-patients. These findings are similar to the study conducted by Gajdács et al., whereby they found that the resistance in Klebsiella species to 3rd generation cephalosporins (e.g., ceftriaxone) had the lowest levels of resistance, at around 15%, in the out-patient group and close to 40% in the in-patient group [54]. In our study, this may be attributed to the high empirical use of antibiotics in healthcare facilities, compared to the community use of antibiotics.
Additionally, the proportion of E. coli (50.6%) and Klebsiella spp. (47.4%) producing extended spectrum β-lactamase enzymes causing CA-UTI among patients with IUC is high. The literature reports that about 60–80% of patients with IUC receive systemic antibiotics for indications far more from UTI, resulting in the infection of the bladder with bacteria resistant to multiple antibiotics [52,55]. This observation calls for the inexpensive strategy to combat antimicrobial resistance at this facility and elsewhere, which is antimicrobial stewardship. A study conducted in Saudi Arabia [56] reported a prevalence of 9.6% of ESBL producing Gram-negative bacteria among patients with IUC. E. coli accounted for 11.3%, whereas K. pneumoniae accounted for 10.1% of ESBL production. These findings are lower compared to what has been observed in our study. This could possibly be explained by a lack of stewardship on antibiotics use on our premises.

5. Conclusions

This is the first study in Sub-Saharan Africa, particularly in northwestern Tanzania, which has shown the prevalence CA-UTI among out-patients and in-patients with an indwelling urinary catheter. E. coli and K. pneumoniae are the common pathogens causing CA-UTI among out-patients with IUC than in-patients with IUC. Moreover, pathogens causing CA-UTI among in-patients were more resistant to antibiotics than those causing CA-UTI among out-patients. Out-patients with IUC were more likely to develop CA-UTI than in-patients, which could also affect their overall well-being. Different factors, including the duration of catheterization, were found to predict CA-UTI. We therefore recommend the educating of patients and carers on how to manage their catheters, maintain hygiene and perform self-care, and early surgical intervention to correct the indications leading to prolonged catheterization, and thus reduce CA-UTI among patients living at home with indwelling catheters.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, A.L.M.N.; methodology, A.L.M.N. and V.S.; formal analysis, A.L.M.N., J.S. and B.R.K.; data curation, A.L.M.N.; writing—original draft preparation, A.L.M.N.; writing—review and editing, R.M.L., B.R.K., J.S., J.M., V.S. and S.E.M.; supervision, S.E.M. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was supported by research grant from the Catholic University of Health and Allied Sciences (CUHAS) to ALMN. The funder had no influence on the conception of the idea for the study, data collection and analysis or manuscript preparation for possible publication consideration.

Institutional Review Board Statement

The study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki, and approved by the Institutional Review Board (or Ethics Committee) of the joint Catholic University of Health and Allied Sciences (CUHAS) and Bugando Medical Centre (BMC) Research Ethics and Review Committee (protocol code CREC.152/2016).

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.

Data Availability Statement

The data presented in this study are available on request from the corresponding author.

Acknowledgments

The authors wish to thank the staff working in the different wards at BMC, the urology clinic and medical record department at BMC, and staff working in the medical laboratory of CUHAS for their technical support.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Amaral, G.L.G.D.; Costa, K.M.D.M.; De Lima, C.M.F.; Domingues, T.A.M.; Barbosa, D.A.; Belasco, A.G.S. Quality of life and body image of patients with urinary disorders. Rev. Bras. Enferm. 2020, 73, e20190522. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. Gould, C.V.; Umscheid, C.A.; Agarwal, R.K.; Kuntz, G.; Pegues, D.A. Healthcare Infection Control Practices Advisory Committee (HICPAC) Guideline for Prevention of Catheter-Associated Urinary Tract Infections 2009. Infect. Control Hosp. Epidemiol. 2010, 31, 319–326. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  3. Niël-Weise, B.S.; Broek, P.J.V.D.; da Silva, E.M.; A Silva, L. Urinary catheter policies for long-term bladder drainage. Cochrane Database Syst. Rev. 2012, 2012, CD004201. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Waskiewicz, A.; Alexis, O.; Cross, D. Supporting patients with long-term catheterisation to reduce risk of catheter-associated urinary tract infection. Br. J. Nurs. 2019, 28, S4–S17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  5. Tenney, J.; Hudson, N.; Alnifaidy, H.; Li, J.T.C.; Fung, K.H. Risk factors for aquiring multidrug-resistant organisms in urinary tract infections: A systematic literature review. Saudi Pharm. J. 2018, 26, 678–684. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Labib, M.; Spasojevic, N. Problem of Catheter Associated Urinary Tract Infections in Sub–Saharan Africa. In Recent Advances in the Field of Urinary Tract Infections; InTech: London, UK, 2013. [Google Scholar]
  7. Elvy, J.; Colville, A. Catheter associated urinary tract infection: What is it, what causes it and how can we prevent it? J. Infect. Prev. 2009, 10, 36–41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Mshana, E.S.; Matee, M.; Rweyemamu, M. Antimicrobial resistance in human and animal pathogens in Zambia, Democratic Republic of Congo, Mozambique and Tanzania: An urgent need of a sustainable surveillance system. Ann. Clin. Microbiol. Antimicrob. 2013, 12, 28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  9. Bagchi, I.; Jaitly, N.K.; Thombare, V. Microbiological Evaluation of Catheter Associated Urinary Tract Infection in a Tertiary Care Hospital. People 2015, 8, 23. [Google Scholar]
  10. Guneysel, O.; Onur, O.; Erdede, M.; Denizbasi, A. Trimethoprim/Sulfamethoxazole Resistance in Urinary Tract Infections. J. Emerg. Med. 2009, 36, 338–341. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Jayaprakash, C.; Bai, M.S. A Study of Bacterial Pathogens and Their Antibiotic Susceptibility Profile from Community-Acquired and Hospital-Acquired Urinary Tract Infections. J. Evol. Med. Dent. Sci. 2016, 5, 1400–1404. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Majumder, M.I.; Ahmed, T.; Ahmed, S.; Khan, A.R. Microbiology of Catheter Associated Urinary Tract Infection. In Microbiology of Urinary Tract Infections—Microbial Agents and Predisposing Factors; Sciyo: London, UK, 2019. [Google Scholar]
  13. Jacobsen, S.M.; Stickler, D.J.; Mobley, H.L.T.; Shirtliff, M.E. Complicated Catheter-Associated Urinary Tract Infections Due to Escherichia coli and Proteus mirabilis. Clin. Microbiol. Rev. 2008, 21, 26–59. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  14. Juhász, J.; Ligeti, B.; Gajdács, M.; Makra, N.; Ostorházi, E.; Farkas, F.; Stercz, B.; Tóth, Á.; Domokos, J.; Pongor, S.; et al. Colonization Dynamics of Multidrug-Resistant Klebsiella pneumoniae Are Dictated by Microbiota-Cluster Group Behavior over Individual Antibiotic Susceptibility: A Metataxonomic Analysis. Antibiotics 2021, 10, 268. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  15. Søgaard, M.; Heide-Jørgensen, U.; Vandenbroucke, J.P.; Schønheyder, H.C.; Vandenbroucke-Grauls, C. Risk factors for extend-ed-spectrum β-lactamase-producing Escherichia coli urinary tract infection in the community in Denmark: A case-control study. Clin. Microbiol. Infect. 2017, 23, 952–960. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  16. Shiralizadeh, S.; Taghizadeh, S.; Asgharzadeh, M.; Shokouhi, B.; Gholizadeh, P.; Rahbar, M.; Kafil, H.S. Urinary tract infections: Raising problem in developing countries. Rev. Med. Microbiol. 2018, 29, 159–165. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Landi, F.; Cesari, M.; Onder, G.; Zamboni, V.; Barillaro, C.; Lattanzio, F.; Bernabei, R. Indwelling urethral catheter and mortality in frail elderly women living in community. Neurourol. Urodyn. 2004, 23, 697–701. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  18. Kralik, D.; Seymour, L.; Eastwood, S.; Koch, T. Managing the self: Living with an indwelling urinary catheter. J. Clin. Nurs. 2007, 16, 177–185. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Northwood, M. Adults experienced a long term indwelling urinary catheter as living with the forces of flowing water. Évid. Based Nurs. 2002, 5, 125. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  20. Ndomba, A.L.M.; Laisser, R.M.; Kidenya, B.R.; Kohi, T.W.; Mwanga, J.R.; Mshana, S.E. Prevalence and indications of long-term indwelling urinary catheter among out-patients attending urology clinic at a tertiary hospital in Northwestern Tanzania. Afr. J. Urol. 2021, 27, 1–6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Welden, L. Electronic Health Record: Driving Evidence-Based Catheter-Associated Urinary Tract Infections (CAUTI) Care Practices. OJIN Online J. Issues Nurs. 2013, 18, 50–59. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Zhu, Z.; Wang, Z.; Li, S.; Yuan, X. Antimicrobial strategies for urinary catheters. J. Biomed. Mater. Res. Part A 2019, 107, 445–467. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Vasudevan, R. Urinary Tract Infection: An Overview of the Infection and the Associated Risk Factors. J. Microbiol. Exp. 2014, 1, 42–54. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Prinjha, S. CA: Living with an indwelling urinary catheter. Eur. PMC 2013, 109, 12–14. [Google Scholar]
  25. Garibaldi, R.A.; Burke, J.P.; Dickman, M.L.; Smith, C.B. Factors Predisposing to Bacteriuria during Indwelling Urethral Catheterization. N. Engl. J. Med. 1974, 291, 215–219. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Willson, M.; Wilde, M.; Webb, M.-L.; Thompson, D.; Parker, D.; Harwood, J.; Callan, L.; Gray, M. Nursing Interventions to Reduce the Risk of Catheter-Associated Urinary Tract Infection. J. Wound Ostomy Cont. Nurs. 2009, 36, 137–154. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  27. Gardner, A.; Mitchell, B.; Beckingham, W.; Fasugba, O. A point prevalence cross-sectional study of healthcare-associated urinary tract infections in six Australian hospitals. BMJ Open 2014, 4, e005099. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  28. Geng, V.; Cobussen-Boekhorst, H.; Farrell, J.; Gea Sánchez, M.; Pearce, I.; Schwennesen, T.; Vahr, S.; Vandewinkel, C. Catheterisation. Indwelling Catheters in Adults. Urethral and Suprapubic. Evidence-Based Guidelines for Best Practice in Urological Health Care. European Association of Urology Nurses (EAUN): Arnhem, The Netherlands, 2012. [Google Scholar]
  29. Letica-Kriegel, A.S.; Salmasian, H.; Vawdrey, D.K.; Youngerman, B.; A Green, R.; Furuya, E.Y.; Calfee, D.P.; Perotte, R. Identifying the risk factors for catheter-associated urinary tract infections: A large cross-sectional study of six hospitals. BMJ Open 2019, 9, e022137. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  30. Stickler, D.J.; Feneley, R.C.L. The encrustation and blockage of long-term indwelling bladder catheters: A way forward in prevention and control. Spinal Cord 2010, 48, 784–790. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Ikegami, Y.; Yoshida, K.; Imaizumi, T.; Isosu, T.; Kurosawa, S.; Murakawa, M. Life-threatening urethral hemorrhage after placement of a Foley catheter in a patient with uroseptic disseminated intravascular coagulation due to chronic urinary retention induced by untreated benign prostatic hyperplasia. Acute Med. Surg. 2016, 3, 407–410. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  32. Ekwealor, P.A.; Ugwu, M.C.; Ezeobi, I.; Amalukwe, G.; Ugwu, B.C.; Okezie, U.; Stanley, C.; Esimone, C. Antimicrobial Evaluation of Bacterial Isolates from Urine Specimen of Patients with Complaints of Urinary Tract Infections in Awka, Nigeria. Int. J. Microbiol. 2016, 2016, 9740273. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  33. Pérez, R.P.; Ortega, M.J.C.; Álvarez, J.A.; Baquero-Artigao, F.; Rico, J.C.S.; Zúñiga, R.V.; Campos, L.M.; Gallego, B.C.; Fernández, A.J.C.; Calvo, C.; et al. Recommendations on the diagnosis and treatment of urinary tract infection. An. Pediatría 2019, 90, 400.e1–400.e9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. CLSI. C: Performance Standards for Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing; Clinical Lab Standards Institute: Wayne, PA, USA, 2016. [Google Scholar]
  35. Igawa, Y.; Wyndaele, J.-J.; Nishizawa, O. Catheterization: Possible complications and their prevention and treatment. Int. J. Urol. 2008, 15, 481–485. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  36. Mackay, W.G.; MacIntosh, T.; Kydd, A.; Fleming, A.; O’Kane, C.; Shepherd, A.; Hagen, S.; Williams, C.; Mundie, J.; Russell, C.; et al. Living with an indwelling urethral catheter in a community setting: Exploring triggers for unscheduled community nurse “out-of-hours” visits. J Clin Nurs. 2018, 27, 866–875. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  37. Stöhrer, M.; Castro-Diaz, D.; Chartier-Kastler, E.; Kramer, G.; Mattiasson, A.; Wyndaele, J.J. Guidelines on neurogenic lower urinary tract dysfunction. Progrès en Urologie 2007, 17, 703–755. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  38. Nicolle, E.L. Catheter associated urinary tract infections. Antimicrob. Resist. Infect. Control 2014, 3, 23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  39. Amalaradjou, M.A.R.; Venkitanarayanan, K. Role of bacterial biofilms in catheter-associated urinary tract infections (CAUTI) and strategies for their control. Recent Adv. Field Urin. Tract Infect. 2013, 10, 1–32. [Google Scholar]
  40. Acker, N. Reducing the risk of infection in indwelling catheterisation. J. Community Nurs. 2014, 28, 28. [Google Scholar]
  41. Emr, K.; Ryan, R. Best practice for indwelling catheter in the home setting. Home Health Nurse J. Home Care Hosp. Prof. 2004, 22, 820–828. [Google Scholar]
  42. Dougnon, T.V.; Bankole, H.S.; Johnson, R.C.; Hounmanou, G.; Toure, I.; Houessou, C.; Boko, M.; Baba-Moussa, L. Catheter-associated urinary tract infections at a hospital in Zinvie, Benin (West Africa). Int. J. Infect. 2016, 3, e34141. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Feneley, R.C.L.; Hopley, I.B.; Wells, P.N.T. Urinary catheters: History, current status, adverse events and research agenda. J. Med Eng. Technol. 2015, 39, 459–470. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  44. Vaidyanathan, S.; Ward, J.; Soni, B.M.; Hughes, P.; Oo, T. Persistent urine leakage around a suprapubic catheter: The experience of a person with chronic tetraplegia. Spinal Cord Ser. Cases 2018, 4, 31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  45. Wilde, M.H.; McMahon, J.M.; Crean, H.F.; Brasch, J. Exploring relationships of catheter-associated urinary tract infection and blockage in people with long-term indwelling urinary catheters. J. Clin. Nurs. 2017, 26, 2558–2571. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  46. Podkovik, S.; Toor, H.; Gattupalli, M.; Kashyap, S.; Brazdzionis, J.; Patchana, T.; Bonda, S.; Wong, S.; Kang, C.; Mo, K. Prevalence of catheter-associated urinary tract infections in neurosurgical intensive care patients–the overdiagnosis of urinary tract infec-tions. Cureus 2019, 11, e5494–e5503. [Google Scholar] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  47. Getliffe, K.; Newton, T. Catheter-associated urinary tract infection in primary and community health care. Age Ageing 2006, 35, 477–481. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  48. Indwelling Urinary Catheter-Insertion and Ongoing Care. Available online: https://www.rch.org.au/rchcpg/hospital_clinical_guideline_index/Indwelling_urinary_catheter_insertion_and_ongoing_care (accessed on 31 January 2022).
  49. Hedawoo, J.B.; Deshmukh, K.S. A Study to Determine the Prevalence of Catheter Associated Urinary Tract Infection in Surgical Wards and Recovery Room in a Tertiary Healthcare Centre in Central India. Int. J. Sci. Res. 2019, 8, 871–875. [Google Scholar]
  50. Petronio Petronio, G.; Cutuli, M.A.; Magnifico, I.; Venditti, N.; Pietrangelo, L.; Vergalito, F.; Pane, A.; Scapagnini, G.; Di Marco, R. In vitro and in vivo biological activity of berberine chloride against uropathogenic E. coli strains using Galleria mellonella as a host model. Molecules 2020, 25, 5010. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  51. Marando, R.; Seni, J.; Mirambo, M.M.; Falgenhauer, L.; Moremi, N.; Mushi, M.; Kayange, N.; Manyama, F.; Imirzalioglu, C.; Chakraborty, T.; et al. Predictors of the extended-spectrum-beta lactamases producing Enterobacteriaceae neonatal sepsis at a tertiary hospital, Tanzania. Int. J. Med. Microbiol. 2018, 308, 803–811. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Silago, V.; Kovacs, D.; Msanga, D.R.; Seni, J.; Matthews, L.; Oravcová, K.; Zadoks, R.N.; Lupindu, A.M.; Hoza, A.S.; Mshana, S.E. Bacteremia in critical care units at Bugando Medical Centre, Mwanza, Tanzania: The role of colonization and contaminated cots and mothers’ hands in cross-transmission of multidrug resistant Gram-negative bacteria. Antimicrob. Resist. Infect. Control. 2020, 9, 1–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Gajdács, M.; Ábrók, M.; Lázár, A.; Burián, K. Comparative Epidemiology and Resistance Trends of Common Urinary Pathogens in a Tertiary-Care Hospital: A 10-Year Surveillance Study. Medicina 2019, 55, 356. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  54. Warren, J.W. Catheter-associated urinary tract infections. Infect. Dis. Clin. N. Am. 1997, 11, 609–622. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Kader, A.A.; Angamuthu, K. Extended-spectrum beta-lactamases in urinary isolates of Escherichia coli, Klebsiella pneumoniae and other gram-negative bacteria in a hospital in Eastern Province, Saudi Arabia. Saudi Med. J. 2005, 26, 956–959. [Google Scholar]
  56. Maharjan, G.; Khadka, P.; Shilpakar, G.S.; Chapagain, G.; Dhungana, G. Catheter-Associated Urinary Tract Infection and Obstinate Biofilm Producers. Can. J. Infect. Dis. Med. Microbiol. 2018, 2018, 7624857. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
Microorganisms 10 00473 g001 550
Figure 1. Prevalence of catheter-associated urinary tract infection (CA-UTI) among participants with short-term and long-term IUC.
Figure 1. Prevalence of catheter-associated urinary tract infection (CA-UTI) among participants with short-term and long-term IUC.
Microorganisms 10 00473 g001
Microorganisms 10 00473 g002 550
Figure 2. Pathogens causing catheter-associated urinary tract infection (CA-UTI) among participants with short-term and long-term IUC.
Figure 2. Pathogens causing catheter-associated urinary tract infection (CA-UTI) among participants with short-term and long-term IUC.
Microorganisms 10 00473 g002
Microorganisms 10 00473 g003 550
Figure 3. Increasing duration (days) of catheterization increases the risks of complications.
Figure 3. Increasing duration (days) of catheterization increases the risks of complications.
Microorganisms 10 00473 g003
Table
Table 1. Socio-demographic characteristics of participants with short-term IUC (in-patients) and long-term IUC (out-patients).
Table 1. Socio-demographic characteristics of participants with short-term IUC (in-patients) and long-term IUC (out-patients).
Patient CharacteristicsOut-Patients (N = 202),
n (%)		In-Patients (N = 238),
n (%)		p-Value
Median age [IQR] in years69 (61–77)46 (30–62)<0.001
Sex
Males194 (96.0)132 (55.5)<0.001
Females8 (4.0)106 (44.5)
Residence
Outside Mwanza117 (57.9)119 (50)0.097
Mwanza85 (42.1)119 (50)
Marital status
Married187 (92.6)195 (81.3)<0.001
Single15 (7.4)43 (18.1)
Occupation
Peasants136 (67.3)164 (68.9)<0.001
Retired29 (14.4)2 (0.8)
Petty traders26 (12.9)64 (26.9)
Civil servants11 (5.5)8 (3.4)
Religion
Christians153 (75.7)202 (84.9)0.041
Muslims26 (12.9)22 (9.2)
Others23 (11.4)14 (6.0)
Education
No formal education43 (21.3)17 (7.1)<0.001
Primary level116 (57.3)198 (83.2)
Secondary level29 (14.4)18 (7.6)
College and above14 (6.9)5 (2.1)
Key: IQR = Interquartile range.
Table
Table 2. Clinical characteristics of participants with short-term IUC (in-patients) and long-term IUC (out-patients).
Table 2. Clinical characteristics of participants with short-term IUC (in-patients) and long-term IUC (out-patients).
Patient CharacteristicsOut-Patients (N = 202),
n (%)		In-Patients (N = 238),
n (%)		p-Value
Type of catheter
Supra-pubic type82 (40.6)10 (4.2)<0.001
Urethral type120 (59.4)228 (95.8)
Catheter size (FR)
14 FR19 (9.4)70 (29.4)<0.001
16 FR158 (78.2)149 (62.6)
18 FR15 (7.4)19 (8.0)
20 FR10 (5.0)-
Instructions for proper handling of catheters at home for out-patients
Given20 (9.9)NANA
Not given182 (90.1)NA
Catheter change for out-patients
Changed123 (61.0)NANA
Not changed79 (39.1)NA
Duration of catheter in situ (weeks)
0–20 (0.00)238 (100)<0.001
3–591 (45.1)0 (0.00)
≥6111 (55.0)0 (0.00)
Comorbidity
With comorbidity44 (21.8)48 (20.2)0.163
No comorbidity158 (78.2)190 (79.8)
Indications for catheterization
BPH122 (60.4)9 (3.8)<0.001
Urethral stricture37 (18.3)19 (8.0)
Urine retention24 (11.9)-
Urinary incontinence13 (6.4)78 (32.8)
CNS2 (0.9)24 (10.1)
Fistula-25 (10.5)
Others29 (14.4)79 (33.2)
Complications associated with IUC
CA-UTI108 (53.5)78 (32.7)0.005
Leakage and CA-UTI25 (11.9)2 (0.8)
Blockage and CA-UTI21 (10.4)-
Bleeding and CA-UTI12 (5.4)4 (1.7)
Leakage of urine3 (1.5)4 (1.7)
Blockage of catheter1 (0.5)1 (0.4)
Bleeding-1 (0.4)
None34 (16.8)149 (62.6)
Key: FR = French size; BPH = benign prostatic hypertrophy; CNS = central nervous system; CA-UTI = catheter-associate urinary tract infection.
Table
Table 3. Percentage resistance of bacteria causing CA-UTI among patients with short-term and long-term IUC.
Table 3. Percentage resistance of bacteria causing CA-UTI among patients with short-term and long-term IUC.
Bacterial SpeciesAMP
n (R%)		SXT
n (R%)		CN
n (R%)		CIP
n (R%)		AMC
n (R%)		CRO
n (R%)		CAZ
n (R%)		F
n (R%)		MEM
n (R%)		ESBL n (%)
Positivep-Value
E. coli
Out-patients (55)52 (94.5)46 (83.6)20 (36.4)24 (43.6)41 (74.5)25 (45.5)27 (49.1)17 (30.9)14 (25.4)25 (45.5)0.6013
In-patients (24)23 (95.8)21 (87.5)14 (58.3)16 (66.7)22 (91.7)12 (50.0)13 (54.2)11 (45.8)0 (0.0)12 (50.0)
All (79)75 (94.6)67 (84.8)34 (43.0)40 (50.6)63 (79.7)37 (46.8)40 (50.6)28 (35.4)14 (17.7)37 (50.6)-
Klebsiella spp.
Out-patients (47)47 (100)38 (80.9)11 (23.4)13 (27.7)38 (80.8)19 (40.4)18 (38.3)20 (42.6)12 (25.5)18 (38.3)0.0766
In-patients (29)29 (100)25 (86.2)13 (44.8)12 (41.4)23 (79.3)17 (58.6)15 (51.7)15 (51.7)0 (0.0)18 (62.1)
All (76)76 (100)63 (82.9)24 (31.6)25 (32.9)61 (80.3)36 (47.4)33 (43.4)35 (46.1)12 (15.7)36 (47.4)-
Other Gram-negative rods (GNR)
Out-patients (69) *46 (80.7)34 (59.6)14 (20.3)22 (31.9)56 (81.3)19 (33.3)23 (33.3)31 (44.9)19 (27.5)NTNA
In-patients (30) **11 (52.4)9 (42.9)6 (20.0)9 (30.0)23 (76.4)7 (33.3)6 (20.0)9 (30.0)0 (0.0)NTNA
All GNR (99) ***57 (73.1)43 (55.1)20 (20.2)31 (31.3)79 (79.6)26 (33.3)29 (29.3)40 (40.4)19 (19.2)NTNA
Key: NT = not tested; NA = not applicable; AMP = ampicillin; SXT = trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole; CIP = ciprofloxacin; CRO = ceftriaxone; CAZ = ceftazidime; F = nitrofurantoin; and ESBL = extended spectrum β-lactamase. For GNR, the denominators were 57 (*), 21 (**) and 78 (***) for out-patients, in-patients and all GNR, respectively. For the AMP, SXT, AMC and CRO, the antibiotic discs were not included in the antimicrobial susceptibility testing of P. aeruginosa (N = 21, out-patients n = 12 and in-patients n = 9).
Table
Table 4. Factors associated with complications among patients with short-term and long-term IUC.
Table 4. Factors associated with complications among patients with short-term and long-term IUC.
Patients’ CharacteristicsPatients with Long-Term IUC (Out-Patients)Patients with Short-Term IUC (In-Patients)
ComplicationsAnalysisComplicationsAnalysis
YES n (%)NO n (%)OR [95%CI]p-ValueYES n (%)NO n (%)OR [9 5%CI]p-Value
Age in years69 (61–77) years168 (83.2)34 (16.8)0.99 [0.96–1.0]0.341NANANANA
46 (30–62) yearsNANANANA89 (37.4149 (62.6)0.9 [0.98–1.0]0.309
GenderMales162 (83.5)32 (16.5)1.00.53338 (28.8)94 (71.2)1.00.002
Females6 (75)2 (25.0)0.6 [0.1–3.1]51 (48.1)55 (51.9)2.3 [1.3–3.9]
Marital statusSingle13 (86.7)2 (13.3)1.00.70817 (39.5)26 (60.5)1.00.749
Married155 (82.9)32 (17.1)0.7 [0.2–3.5]72 (36.9)123 (63.1)0.9 [0.5–1.8]
Education levelNo formal education31 (72.1)12 (27.9)1.00.02912 (70.6)5 (29.4)1.00.092
Primary97 (83.6)19 (16.4)1.8 [1.1–3.1]68 (34.3)130 (65.7)0.6 [0.3–1.1]
Secondary28 (96.6)1 (3.5)8 (44.4)10 (55.6)
College12 (85.7)2 (14.3)1 (20.0)4 (80.4)
ComorbidityHIV/AIDS3 (100)0 (0.00)1.00.7572 (22.2)7 (77.8)1.00.408
DM6 (100)0 (0.00)0.99 [0.99–1.0]1 (14.3)6 (85.7)0.9 [0.9–1.0]
HTN13 (81.3)3 (18.8)1 (8.3)11 (91.7)
Anemia4 (66.7)2 (33.3)8 (47.1)9 (52.9)
Others33 (84.6)6 (15.4)22 (57.9)16 (42.1)
None109 (82.6)23 (17.4)55 (35.5)100 (64.5)
Duration of catheter<2 weeksNANANANA89 (37.4)149 (62.6)CollinearityNA
3–5 weeks71 (78.0)20 (22)1.00.080NANANANA
≥6 weeks97 (87.4)14 (12.6)1.9 [0.9–4.1]NANANANA
Type of catheterUrethral101 (84.2)19 (15.8)1.00.64784 (36.8)144 (63.2)1.00.405
Supra-pubic67 (81.7)15 (18.3)1.2 [0.6–2.5]5 (50.0)5 (50.0)0.6 [0.2–2.1]
Catheter size14 FR17 (89.5)2 (10.5)1.00.92331 (44.3)39 (55.7)1.00.167
16 FR130 (82.3)28 (17.7)1.0 [0.5–1.8]52 (34.9)97 (65.1)0.7 [0.5–1.1]
18 FR12 (80)3 (20)6 (31.6)13 (68.4)
20–26 FR9 (90.0)1 (10.0)NANA
Indication for catheterizationBPH98 (80.3)24 (19.7)1.00.5392 (22.2)7 (77.8)1.00.145
Urethral stricture33 (89.2)4 (10.8)1.1 [0.8–1.4]6 (31.6)13 (68.4)1.1 [0.9–1.3]
Urinary incontinence12 (92.3)1 (7.7)18 (23.1)60 (76.9)
CNS/unconsciousness0 (0.00)1 (100)11 (39.3)17 (60.7)
Fistula--23 (92.0)2 (8.0)
Others25 (86.2)4 (13.8)29 (36.7)50 (63.3)
Instructions on living with catheter at homeNot given116 (63.7)66 (36.3)1.00.110NANANANA
Given11 (55.0)9 (45.0)0.5 [0.2–1.2]NANANA
ResidenceMwanza72 (84.7)13 (15.3)1.00.61929 (24.4)90 (75.6)1.0<0.001
Outside Mwanza96 (82.0)21 (17.9)1.2 [0.6–2.6]60 (50.4)59 (49.6)0.3 [0.2–0.5]
OccupationsRetired23 (79.3)6 (20.7)1.00.3991 (50.0)1 (50.0)1.00.539
Peasants112 (82.4)24 (17.6)1.2 [0.8–2.0]63 (38.4)101 (61.6)0.9 [0.7–1.2]
Civil servants11 (100)0 (0.00)3 (37.5)5 (62.5)
Petty traders22 (84.6)4 (15.4)22 (34.4)42 (65.6)
Positioning of urine bagsHanging freelyNANANANA45 (29.4)108 (70.6)1.0<0.001
Not hanging freelyNANANA44 (51.8)41 (48.2)0.4 [0.2–0.8]
WardsMedicalNANANANA10 (23.3)33 (76.7)1.00.644
SurgicalNANANA65 (44.2)82 (55.8)1.1 [0.7–1.7]
OthersNANANA14 (29.2)34 (70.8)
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Ndomba, A.L.M.; Laisser, R.M.; Silago, V.; Kidenya, B.R.; Mwanga, J.; Seni, J.; Mshana, S.E. Urinary Tract Infections and Associated Factors among Patients with Indwelling Urinary Catheters Attending Bugando Medical Centre a Tertiary Hospital in Northwestern Tanzania. Microorganisms 2022, 10, 473. https://doi.org/10.3390/microorganisms10020473

AMA Style

Ndomba ALM, Laisser RM, Silago V, Kidenya BR, Mwanga J, Seni J, Mshana SE. Urinary Tract Infections and Associated Factors among Patients with Indwelling Urinary Catheters Attending Bugando Medical Centre a Tertiary Hospital in Northwestern Tanzania. Microorganisms. 2022; 10(2):473. https://doi.org/10.3390/microorganisms10020473

Chicago/Turabian Style

Ndomba, Asteria L. M., Rose M. Laisser, Vitus Silago, Benson R. Kidenya, Joseph Mwanga, Jeremiah Seni, and Stephen E. Mshana. 2022. "Urinary Tract Infections and Associated Factors among Patients with Indwelling Urinary Catheters Attending Bugando Medical Centre a Tertiary Hospital in Northwestern Tanzania" Microorganisms 10, no. 2: 473. https://doi.org/10.3390/microorganisms10020473

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop