metricas
covid
Buscar en
Enfermedades Infecciosas y Microbiología Clínica
Toda la web
Inicio Enfermedades Infecciosas y Microbiología Clínica Diagnóstico microbiológico de la infección del tracto urinario
Journal Information
Vol. 23. Issue S1.
Infección del tracto urinario en la comunidad
Pages 9-14 (December 2005)
Share
Share
Download PDF
More article options
Vol. 23. Issue S1.
Infección del tracto urinario en la comunidad
Pages 9-14 (December 2005)
Infección del tracto urinario en la comunidad
Full text access
Diagnóstico microbiológico de la infección del tracto urinario
Microbiological diagnosis of urinary tract infections
Visits
23594
Marina de Cueto
Corresponding author
m@marinadecueto.e.telefonica.net

Correspondencia: Dra.M. de Cueto. Departamento de Microbiología. Hospital Universitario Virgen Macarena. Dr. Fedriani, 56. 41013 Sevilla. España.
Departamento de Microbiología. Hospital Universitario Virgen Macarena. Sevilla. España
This item has received
Article information

El diagnóstico definitivo de la infección del tracto urinario (ITU) se realiza por cultivo cuantitativo de orina. Tradicionalmente se ha considerado que la presencia en orina de 100.000 o más bacterias/ml representa una bacteriuria significativa, indicativa de ITU. Sin embargo, este criterio sólo es aplicable a ciertos grupos de población y actualmente no se puede considerar un criterio absoluto. La presencia “real” de cualquier número de bacterias en orina puede representar una ITU cuando existen síntomas específicos y piuria.

En los últimos años se han comercializado diferentes sistemas automáticos que, adaptando técnicas clásicas de diagnóstico, permiten descartar de forma rápida la existencia de ITU, aunque su utilidad clínica es controvertida. Los nuevos medios de cultivo cromogénicos permiten asimismo la identificación directa de los uropatógenos en el medio y, sobre todo, facilitan enormemente la detección de cultivos polimicrobianos. Del mismo modo, hay sistemas automáticos que permiten obtener resultados de identificación y sensibilidad en el día. Sin embargo, la continua aparición de nuevos fenotipos de resistencia ha obligado a modificar el modelo de antibiograma que se venía realizando a los uropatógenos clásicos, por lo que se requieren técnicas especiales para su detección y caracterización. La interpretación correcta del antibiograma, en estos casos, resulta fundamental para detectar estos fenotipos y conseguir el éxito terapéutico.

Palabras clave:
Bacteriuria significativa
Infección urinaria
Urocultivo
Diagnóstico microbiológico

Definitive diagnosis of urinary tract infection (UTI) is performed through quantitative urine culture. Traditionally the presence of 100,000 or more bacteria/ml in urine has been considered to represent significant bacteriuria, indicating UTI. However, this criterion is only applicable to certain population groups and cannot currently be considered an absolute criterion. The “real” presence ofany number of bacteria in urine can represent a UTI when there are specific symptoms and pyuria.

In the last few years various automatic systems have been introduced onto the market which, by adapting classical diagnostic techniques, allow the presence of a UTI to be rapidly ruled out, although their clinical utility is controversial. In addition, the new chromogenic culture media allow direct identification of uropathogens and, in particular, are of enormous help in the detection of polymicrobial cultures. Likewise, automatic systems can provide results on identification and sensitivity to be obtained in a single day. However, because new phenotypes of resistance are continually appearing, the antibiogram model used with classical uropathogens has had to be modified, requiring special techniques for pathogen detection and characterization. Correct interpretation of the antibiogram in these cases is essential to detect these phenotypes and achieve therapeutic success.

Key words:
Significant bacteriuria
Urinary infection
Urine culture
Microbiological diagnosis
Full text is only aviable in PDF
Bibliografía
[1.]
E.H. Kass.
Bacteriuria and the diagnosis of infections of the urinary tract.
Arch Intern Med, 100 (1957), pp. 709-714
[2.]
E.H. Kass.
Bacteriuria and pyelonephritis of pregnancy.
Trans Assoc Am Phys, 72 (1959), pp. 257-264
[3.]
T.M. Hooton.
The epidemiology of urinary tract infection and the concept of significant bacteriuria.
Infection, (1990), pp. S40-S43
[4.]
C.M. Kunin, L. Van Arsdale, T. Hua.
A reassessment of the importante of “low count” bacteriuria in young women with acute urinary symptoms.
Ann Intern Med, 119 (1993), pp. 454-460
[5.]
W.E. Stamm, T.M. Hooton.
Management of urinary tract infections in adults.
N Engl J Med, 329 (1993), pp. 1328-1334
[6.]
C.M. Kunin.
An overview of urinary tract infections.
Urinary tract infection. Detection, prevention and management, 5th ed., pp. 2-21
[7.]
Dalet F, Broseta E, De Cueto M, Santos M, De la Rosa M. La infección urinaria. Protocolos microbiológicos SEIMC 2002. Disponible en: www.seimc.org/protocolos/microbiología/indice14.htm
[8.]
J.M. Miller, H.T. Holmes, K. Krisher.
General principles of specimen collection and handling.
Manual of clinical microbiology, 8th ed., pp. 55-66
[9.]
J.E. Clarridge, M.T. Pezzlo, K.L. Vosti.
Laboratory diagnosis of urinary tract infections.
Cumitech 2A,
[10.]
A. Baerheim, A. Digranes, S. Hunskaar.
Evaluation of urine sampling techniques: bacterial contamination of samples from women students.
Br J Gen Pract, 42 (1992), pp. 241-243
[11.]
Y.W. Cheng, S.N. Wong.
Diagnosing symptomatic urinary tract infections in infants by catheter urine culture.
J Paediatr Child Health, 41 (2005), pp. 437-440
[12.]
U. Jodal.
Suprapubic aspiration of urine in the diagnosis of urinary tract infection in infants.
Acta Paediatr, 91 (2002), pp. 497-498
[13.]
P.S. Li, L.C. Ma, S.N. Wong.
Is bag urine culture useful in monitoring urinary tract infection in infants?.
J Pediatr Child Health, 20 (2002), pp. 22-24
[14.]
C.M. Kunin.
Diagnostic methods.
Urinary tract infection. Detection, prevention and management, 5th ed., pp. 42-77
[15.]
O. Aspevall, B. Osterman, R. Dittmer, L. Sten, E. Lindback, U. Forsum.
Performance of four chromogenic urine culture media after one or two days of incubation compared with reference media.
J Clin Microbiol, 40 (2002), pp. 1500-1503
[16.]
J. Tamayo, J.L. Gómez-Garcés, J.I. Alós.
Evaluation of Granada agar plate for detection of Streptococcus agalactiae in urine specimens from pregnant women.
J Clin Microbiol, 42 (2004), pp. 3834-3836
[17.]
D.S. Lin, F.Y. Huang, N.C. Chiu, H.A. Koa, H.Y. Hung, C.H. Hsu, et al.
Comparison of hemocytometer leukocyte counts and standard urinalyses for predicting urinary tract infections in febrile infants.
Pediatr Infect Dis J, 19 (2000), pp. 223-227
[18.]
M. Hiraoka, Y. Hida, Y. Mori, H. Tsukahara, Y. Ohshima, H. Yoshida, et al.
Quantitative unspun-urine microscopy as a quick, reliable examination for bacteriuria.
Scand J Clin Lab Invest, 65 (2005), pp. 125-132
[19.]
P. Smith, A. Morris, L.B. Reller.
Predicting urine culture results by dipstick testing and phase contrast microscopy.
Pathology, 37 (2003), pp. 178-179
[20.]
R.D. McNair, S.R. MacDonald, S.L. Dooley, L.R. Peterson.
Evaluation of the centrifuged and Gram-stained smear, urinalysis, and reagent strip testing to detect asymptomatic bacteriuria in obstetric patients.
Am J Obstet Gynecol, 182 (2000), pp. 1076-1079
[21.]
W.L. Deville, J.C. Yzermans, N.P. Van Duijn, P.D. Bezemer, D.A. Van der Windt, L.M. Bouter.
The urine dipstick test useful to rule out infections. A metaanalysis of the accuracy.
[22.]
H. Semeniuk, J. Noonan, H. Gill, D. Church.
Evaluation of the Coral UTI Screen system for rapid automated screening of significant bacteriuria in a regional centralized laboratory.
Diagn Microbiol Infect Dis, 44 (2002), pp. 7-10
[23.]
D. Velasco, E. Gil, P. García, A. Guerrero.
Eficacia de dos métodos semiautomáticos para detección de bacteriuria.
Enferm Infecc Microbiol Clin, 20 (2002), pp. 22-24
[24.]
D. Church, D. Gregson.
Screening urine samples for significant bacteriuria in the clinical microbiology laboratory.
Clin Microbiol Newsletter, 26 (2004), pp. 179-183
[25.]
J.W. Warren, E. Abrutyn, J.R. Hebel, J.R. Johnson, A.J. Schaeffer, W.E. Stamm.
Guidelines for antimicrobial treatment of uncomplicated acute bacterial cystitis and pyelonephritis in women. Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA).
Clin Infect Dis, 29 (1999), pp. 745-758
[26.]
A. Andreu, J.I. Alós, M. Gobernado, F. Marco, M. De la Rosa, J.A. García-Rodríguez, Grupo Cooperativo Español para el Estudio de la Sensibilidad Antimicrobiana de los Patógenos Urinarios.
Etiología y sensibilidad a los antimicrobianos de los uropatógenos causantes de la infección urinaria baja adquirida en la comunidad. Estudio nacional multicéntrico.
Enferm Infecc Microbiol Clin, 23 (2005), pp. 4-9
[27.]
G. Kahlmenter.
An international survey of the antimicrobial susceptibility of pathogens from uncomplicated urinary tract infections: the ECO-SENS Project.
J Antimicrob Chemother, 51 (2003), pp. 69-76
[28.]
National Committee for Clinical Laboratory Standards. Performance standards for antimicrobial susceptibility testing. Twelve informational supplement M100-S12 National Committee for Clinical Laboratory Standards. Wayne; 2002.
[29.]
J.L. Muñoz, J.A. García-Rodríguez.
Detección de mecanismos de resistencia.
Enferm Infecc Microbiol Clin, 21 (2003), pp. 72-74
[30.]
P. Courvalin.
Interpretative reading of antimicrobial susceptibility test.
ASM News, 58 (1992), pp. 368-375
Copyright © 2005. Elsevier España S.L.. Todos los derechos reservados
Download PDF
Article options
es en pt

¿Es usted profesional sanitario apto para prescribir o dispensar medicamentos?

Are you a health professional able to prescribe or dispense drugs?

Você é um profissional de saúde habilitado a prescrever ou dispensar medicamentos