1887

Abstract

The absence of a gold-standard methodology for the microbiological diagnosis of urinary tract infections (UTI) has led to insufficient standardization of criteria for the interpretation of results and processing methods, particularly incubation time and culture media.

48-hour incubation time period and use of blood agar enhances the sensitivity of microorganisms isolated significantly.

To determine the sensitivity of blood agar and Brilliance UTI chromogenic agar, incubating for different periods (24–48 hours), for the detection of positive urine cultures.

Comparisons were made between all possible combinations of media and incubation times. As the gold-standard reference, we used the routine methodology of our laboratory, which involves prior screening with available clinical data, flow cytometry, sediment analysis and/or Gram staining. Screened samples were then cultured on blood agar and chromogenic agar and incubated for 48 hours. Also, based on the results of Gram staining, additional media were added in selected cases.

The most significant difference was found between chromogenic agar incubated for 24 hours and blood agar incubated for 48 hours, with the latter method allowing the recovery of 10.14 % more microorganisms ( < 0.0001). Furthermore, the value of performing Gram staining to guide processing was demonstrated, as it avoided the loss of at least 5.14 % of isolates.

At least in urological and nephrological patients it is essential to include enriched culture media (blood agar) or to extend the incubation times due to the improvement of the diagnostic sensitivity of urine cultures. Gram staining also can help detect the presence of fastidious microorganisms or mixed infections, indicating whether rich and/or selective media should be included to enhance the diagnostic sensitivity of cultures. If this methodology is not followed, it should be noted that besides fastidious species, fastidious strains of and will also be missed.

  • This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License. This article was made open access via a Publish and Read agreement between the Microbiology Society and the corresponding author’s institution.
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journal/jmm/10.1099/jmm.0.001846
2024-06-27
2024-07-15
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/jmm/73/6/jmm001846.html?itemId=/content/journal/jmm/10.1099/jmm.0.001846&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

References

  1. Zboromyrska Y, de Cueto López M, Alonso-Tarrés C, Sánchez-Hellín V. Diagnóstico microbiológico de las infecciones del tracto urinario. In Sociedad Española de Enfermedades Infecciosas (SEIMC) vol 14 2019
    [Google Scholar]
  2. McCarter YS, Burd EM, Hall GS, Zervos M. Cumitech 2C: Laboratory Diagnosis of Urinary Tract Infections American Society for Microbiology; 2009
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Garcia S, Isenberg HD. Clinical Microbiology Procedures Handbook, 4th edn Washington D.C: American Society for Microbiology; 2016
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Grey B, Upton M, Joshi LT. Urinary tract infections: a review of the current diagnostics landscape. J Med Microbiol 2023; 72: [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Kouri T, Hofmann W, Falbo R, Oyaert M, Schubert S et al. The EFLM European Urinalysis Guideline Update 2023 Hospital District of
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Mancuso G, Midiri A, Gerace E, Marra M, Zummo S et al. Urinary tract infections: the current scenario and future prospects. Pathogens 2023; 12:623 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Ammenti A, Alberici I, Brugnara M, Chimenz R, Guarino S et al. Updated Italian recommendations for the diagnosis, treatment and follow-up of the first febrile urinary tract infection in young children. Acta Paediatrica 2020; 109:236–247 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Boon HA, Van den Bruel A, Struyf T, Gillemot A, Bullens D et al. Clinical features for the diagnosis of pediatric urinary tract infections: systematic review and meta analysis.. Ann Fam Med 2021; 19:437–446 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Morado F, Wong DW. Applying diagnostic stewardship to proactively optimize the management of urinary tract infections. Antibiotics 2022; 11:308 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Xie R, Li X, Li G, Fu R. Diagnostic value of different urine tests for urinary tract infection: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Transl Androl Urol 2022; 11:325–335 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Kim D, Oh SC, Liu C, Kim Y, Park Y et al. Prediction of urine culture results by automated urinalysis with digital flow morphology analysis. Sci Rep 2021; 11:6033 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Kim SY, Park Y, Kim H, Kim J, Koo SH et al. Rapid screening of urinary tract infection and discrimination of gram-positive and gram-negative bacteria by automated flow cytometric analysis using sysmex UF-5000. J Clin Microbiol 2018; 56:e02004-17 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Alenkaer LK, Pedersen L, Szecsi PB, Bjerrum PJ. Evaluation of the sysmex UF-5000 fluorescence flow cytometer as a screening platform for ruling out urinary tract infections in elderly patients presenting at the emergency department. Scand J Clin Lab Invest 2021; 81:379–384 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Stefaniuk EM. The usefulness of chromogenic media for qualitative and semi-quantitative diagnostic of urinary tract infections. Pol J Microbiol 2018; 67:213–218 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Aspevall O, Osterman B, Dittmer R, Stén L, Lindbäck E et al. Performance of four chromogenic urine culture media after one or two days of incubation compared with reference media. J Clin Microbiol 2002; 40:1500–1503 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Hengstler KA, Hammann R, Fahr AM. Evaluation of BBL CHROMagar orientation medium for detection and presumptive identification of urinary tract pathogens. J Clin Microbiol 1997; 35:2773–2777 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Murray P, Traynor P, Hopson D. Evaluation of microbiological processing of urine specimens: comparison of overnight versus two-day incubation. J Clin Microbiol 1992; 30:1600–1601 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Murray PR, Smith TB, McKinney TC. Clinical evaluation of three urine screening tests Missouri 63110. J Clin Microbiol 1987; 25:467–470 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Cavagnolo R. Evaluation of incubation times for urine cultures. J Clin Microbiol 1995; 33:1954–1956 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Joho K, Soliman H, Weinstein MP. Comparison of one-day versus two-day incubation of urine cultures. Diagn Microbiol Infect Dis 1995; 21:55–56 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Phillip S, Mushi MF, Decano AG, Seni J, Mmbaga BT et al. Molecular characterizations of the coagulase-negative Staphylococci species causing urinary tract infection in Tanzania: a laboratory-based cross-sectional study. Pathogens 2023; 12:180 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Ángel J, García J, Ruiz G, El M, Clínico L. Estudio de los elementos formes de la orina. In Estandarización Del Sedimento Urinario 2010
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Aspevall O, Hallander H, Gant V, Kouri T. European guidelines for urinalysis: a collaborative document produced by European clinical microbiologists and clinical chemists under ECLM in collaboration with ESCMID. Clin Microbiol Infect 2001; 7:173–178 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Murugkar P, Dimise E, Stewart E, Viala SN, Clardy J et al. Identification of a growth factor required for culturing specific fastidious oral bacteria. J Oral Microbiol 2023; 15:2143651 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  25. La Rosa R, Rossi E, Feist AM, Johansen HK, Molin S. Compensatory evolution of Pseudomonas aeruginosa’s slow growth phenotype suggests mechanisms of adaptation in cystic fibrosis. Nat Commun 2021; 12:3186 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Babin BM, Bergkessel M, Sweredoski MJ, Moradian A, Hess S et al. SutA is a bacterial transcription factor expressed during slow growth in Pseudomonas aeruginosa. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2016; 113:E597–E605 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journal/jmm/10.1099/jmm.0.001846
Loading
/content/journal/jmm/10.1099/jmm.0.001846
Loading

Data & Media loading...

Supplements

Supplementary material 1

PDF
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error