 |
|
 |
|
 |
 |
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ARTICLE |
a Division of Pediatric Emergency Medicine
c Departments of Pediatrics and Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Montreal Children's Hospital
b Montreal Children's Hospital Research Institute, McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada
 |
ABSTRACT |
|---|
 TOP ABSTRACT METHODSRESULTSDISCUSSIONCONCLUSIONSREFERENCES |
|---|
METHODS. We conducted a randomized trial in toilet-trained children who presented to a tertiary care pediatric emergency department between November 1, 2004, and October 1, 2005. All toilet-trained children who were between the ages of 2 and 18 years and had a midstream urine sample requested were eligible. Those whose parents consented were cluster-randomized by week to either cleaning or not cleaning the perineum with soap. The risk for a contaminated urine culture (defined as growth of <108 colony-forming units per liter [<105 colony-forming units per milliliter] of a single organism or a mix of 
2 organisms) and the risk for a positive urinalysis (defined as a positive leukocyte esterase and/or nitrites on dipstick or 5 white blood cells per high-powered field on a standard microscopic examination) were analyzed by intention to treat.
RESULTS. A total of 350 children were enrolled. The rate of contamination in the cleaning group was 14 (7.8%) of 179 vs 41 (23.9%) of 171 in the noncleaning group. Children who were randomly assigned to cleaning were less likely to have a positive urinalysis (37 of 179 [20.6%]) than those in the noncleaning group (63 of 171 [36.8%]).
CONCLUSIONS. Urine contamination rates are higher in midstream urine that is collected from toilet-trained children when obtained without perineal/genital cleaning. Cleaning may reduce the risk for returning for repeat cultures and for receiving unnecessary antibiotic treatment and investigations.
Key Words: urinary tract infection • midstream clean catch • contamination rates
Abbreviations: UTI—urinary tract infection • ED—emergency department • CFU—colony-forming unit(s) • RR—relative risk • OR—odds ratio • CI—confidence interval • GLIMMIX—generalized linear matrix model
Urinary tract infection (UTI) is one of the most common bacterial infections among children.1,2 UTIs are an important cause of chronic morbidity in children; long-term complications include hypertension and reduced renal function secondary to renal scarring.3 The accurate diagnosis of a UTI is necessary to ensure appropriate therapy for infected children and to avoid unnecessary therapy and prevent hospital admission for additional evaluation in noninfected children.4,5 A urine culture result is considered the gold standard for diagnosis of a UTI, but difficulty in specimen collection and interpretation of inadequately collected specimens may contribute to its misdiagnosis in children.
Few studies have addressed the method of collecting a midstream urine specimen in outpatient children. The "clean-catch" midstream void technique has been the method of choice in adults since the late 1950s.6,7 The clean-catch midstream technique, however, is time-consuming to explain, frequently performed incorrectly, and associated with increased costs. Several studies in adults have reported no difference in contamination rates between midstream clean-catch and midstream non–clean-catch urine samples.8–13 Authors of these studies hypothesized that cleaning does not lower contamination rates because the urethra is irritated during cleaning. In toilet-trained children, only 3 studies have evaluated the effect of cleaning on bacterial contamination rates in midstream specimens. All 3 studies showed no difference in contamination rates,14–16 but none was randomized; therefore, their results may be confounded by differences in those cleaned versus uncleaned. In this article we describe the first randomized trial, to our knowledge, to address this question.
|
METHODS |
|---|
|
TOPABSTRACTMETHODSRESULTSDISCUSSIONCONCLUSIONSREFERENCES |
|---|
At the beginning of each week throughout the study period, the method for collecting a urine specimen for all children who presented to the ED during that week was randomly assigned by the study investigators. A card stating either "cleaning" or "noncleaning" was randomly chosen from a hat by the study investigator on each Monday morning at 8 AM. Multiple posters were then displayed to inform the ED staff as to whether it was a cleaning or noncleaning week. In addition, during the cleaning week, the soap was given to the children and their parents, and during a noncleaning week, the soap was not given to the children and their parents. Allocation to either the cleaning group or the noncleaning group was the same for all children who presented during that week. The nurses and physicians were not blinded to the collection technique. After informed consent was obtained, verbal and written instructions for obtaining the urine specimen were given to the child and parent(s).
During the cleaning week, the child was given liquid soap (Isoderm; Lalema, Montreal, Quebec, Canada), several gauze pads, a sterile urine-collection container, and an instruction sheet. The child and/or the parent was instructed to spread the labia (for girls) or retract the foreskin (for noncircumcised boys), to clean the urethral meatus and perineum with gauze and liquid soap twice (wiping from front to rear in girls), to urinate into the toilet, and, midway through urination, to collect the urine into the sterile container. During the noncleaning week, the child was given a sterile urine-collection container and an instruction sheet. The child and/or the parent was instructed to spread the labia (for girls) or retract the foreskin (for noncircumcised boys), to urinate into the toilet, and, midway through urination, to collect the urine into the sterile container.
A questionnaire was administered with the urine-collection instructions to the parent of each participating child to document the age, gender, circumcision status (for boys), antibiotic use in the previous 2 weeks, and previous renal problems (other than a previous UTI). Recent antibiotic use was documented because bacterial colony counts may fall below the characteristic range for an infection when an antimicrobial agent is present in the urine. To assess compliance with the collection instructions, we also asked whether the child cleaned with soap before collecting the urine sample. We did not collect data on the presence or absence of urinary symptoms. Information that was recorded from the urinalysis included the presence of nitrites or leukocyte esterase in fresh urine and the presence or absence of bacteria and the number of white blood cells per high-powered field on microscopy of spun urine.
Laboratory Methods and Definitions
On the basis of previous studies,17 the standard of practice at our institution is to perform the urine dipstick on all urine specimens. When the dipstick indicates a positive finding for any component (including leukocyte esterase, nitrites, ketones, protein, glucose, or blood), a microscopic urinalysis is performed. A positive urinalysis is defined as a positive leukocyte esterase and/or nitrites on dipstick or 5 white blood cells per high-powered field on a standard microscopic examination done after centrifuging the urine.17 All samples with a positive urinalysis were sent for culture. Given that false-negative urinalysis results in toilet-trained children are rare, urine samples are not sent for culture when the urinalysis is negative.
Urine specimens were sent to the microbiology laboratory in sterile containers. Standard quantitative culture was performed by laboratory technologists. Urine was plated onto MacConkey agar plates and sheep-blood agar plates with a 0.01-mL calibrated loop. Cultures were incubated for 48 hours at 35°C and examined daily for growth. Microbiologists at the laboratory were blinded to the randomization week and hence to the cleaning or noncleaning status of each child's specimen. A positive urine culture was defined as growth of a single pathogenic organism with 108 colony-forming units (CFU)/L (105 CFU/mL) of urine. Urinary tract pathogens included Escherichia coli, Proteus, Klebsiella, Enterococcus, Enterobacter, and Pseudomonas. Nonpathogenic organisms included Lactobacillus, Corynebacterium, and coagulase-negative staphylococci.18 A contaminated urine culture was defined as a culture growing a single organism with <108 CFU/L (<105 CFU/mL) or a mix of 2 or more organisms.13,19 A negative culture was defined as no growth. For assessment of whether the contamination rate was affected by the time of day when the sample was plated in the microbiology laboratory, the time of collection of the urine sample was recorded.
Statistical Analysis
We estimated the number of children needed to detect a clinically important difference of 20%, based on an 
value of .05 and a power of 80%, as 182 in each group. This estimation was based on a predicted contamination rate of 20% in urine that was obtained after cleaning. Relative risks (RR) and their 95% confidence interval (CI) for contamination and for a positive urinalysis were calculated using SPSS 11.0 (SPSS, Chicago, IL). Analysis was based on intention to treat. To test for a difference in the culture result between the cleaning and noncleaning groups among samples with a positive urinalysis, we calculated a 
2 test statistic. Because the intervention was randomized by week rather than by individual patient, a generalized linear mixed model (GLIMMIX) was also used to account for potential within-week clustering of outcome results and to adjust for potential baseline imbalances in gender, age, and history of renal problems. The interaction terms for treatment by gender and age were also included in the GLIMMIX model.
|
RESULTS |
|---|
|
TOPABSTRACTMETHODSRESULTSDISCUSSIONCONCLUSIONSREFERENCES |
|---|
|
|
The overall prevalence of UTI in the study population was 7%, with the most common pathogen, Escherichia coli, growing in 19 (83%) of 23 of the positive cultures. Two other pathogens isolated were Enterococcus (n = 1) and Proteus (n = 3) species. Ninety-six percent of the positive cultures were seen in girls, with a mean age of 8 years. The majority of contaminated specimens grew a mix of 2 or more species (n = 34). The remaining contaminated cultures grew either 1 organism <107 CFU/L (<104 CFU/mL; n = 15) or nonpathogenic organisms, including Corynebacterium (n = 3) and coagulase-negative Staphylococcus epidermis (n = 3). Of the 55 contaminated urine specimens, 21 were collected during the day and 34 were collected during the evening. None of the specimens that were collected overnight was contaminated. The contamination rate in the cleaning group was 14 (7.8%) of 179 compared with 41 (23.9%) of 171 in the noncleaning group (RR: 0.37; 95% CI: 0.19–0.57; Table 2). Urine specimens that were obtained with cleaning were less likely to have a positive urinalysis (37 of 179 [20.6%]) than those that were obtained in the noncleaning group (63 of 171 [36.8%]) (RR for positive urinalysis: 0.56; 95% CI: 0.40–0.79; Table 2). In the GLIMMIX model used to account for potential clustering within weeks, the effect was similar; the OR for contamination in the cleaning group was 0.27 (95% CI: 0.14–0.51), and the OR for a positive urinalysis in the cleaning group was 0.45 (95% CI: 0.28–0.72). In the cleaning group, the predictive value of a positive urinalysis for UTI was 15 (40.5%) of 37, compared with 8 (12.7%) of 63 in the noncleaning group (P = .001). Sensitivity, specificity, and negative predictive value could not be calculated, because only specimens with positive urinalyses were sent for culture. When a positive urine culture was defined as 107 CFU/L (104 CFU/mL) instead of 108 CFU/L (105 CFU/mL), only 1 urine sample that previously was classified as contaminated would be reclassified as positive and the contamination rates were almost identical: 14 (7.8%) of 179 in the cleaning group versus 40 (23.4%) of 171 in the noncleaning group (RR: 0.38; 95% CI: 0.20–0.59).
|
|
DISCUSSION |
|---|
|
TOPABSTRACTMETHODSRESULTSDISCUSSIONCONCLUSIONSREFERENCES |
|---|
The results of our study and other studies that assessed rates of contamination depend on the definition of a contaminated urine specimen. Since the 1950s, the traditional <108 CFU/L (<105 CFU/mL) cutoff point has been used by clinicians to denote a positive culture.20 The prevailing view is that a mixed culture in an uncomplicated outpatient likely indicates contamination. Low levels (<107 CFU/L [<104 CFU/mL]) of organisms that commonly are found on the skin and external genitalia are considered to be contaminants. After reviewing the literature,13,18,20–24 we defined a positive urine culture as growth of 108 CFU/L (105 CFU/mL) of urine from a clean-catch midstream specimen. Our overall results were very similar when we defined a positive culture as 107 CFU/L (104 CFU/mL): all but 1 of the contaminated specimens were attributable either to mixed specimens or to nonpathogenic organisms with <107 CFU/L (<104 CFU/mL). In previous studies in adults, contamination rates for clean-catch midstream urine specimens have ranged from 0% to 32%.25–27
In exploratory posthoc analyses, we observed a significantly larger difference in contamination rates according to treatment among children who were 6 to 18 years than among those who were 2 to 5 years. This difference in effect of cleaning may be attributable to poorer local hygiene and/or more careful cleaning in the older children.
Because urine samples with a positive urinalysis were sent for culture and because we observed more positive urinalyses among the noncleaning group, a higher percentage of samples from the noncleaning group were sent for culture; this has implications for clinical practice, because clinicians prefer to identify children with a sufficiently increased likelihood of UTI to justify presumptive antibiotic treatment while awaiting the results of the urine culture, which may not be available for 24 to 48 hours. Management decisions are therefore often based on the results of the urinalysis and can include treating the child immediately with antibiotics, waiting until the culture result is known, or obtaining a repeat collection of the urine sample.
It has been hypothesized that daytime urine (fluid diuresis) and frequent daytime voiding can result in lower colony counts. Conversely, overnight dwelling of urine in the bladder may lead to an increased concentration of bacteria. However, time of collection did not affect the contamination rates in our study.
Although written instructions were given to the child and the parent, it is difficult to verify that either cleaning or midstream collection was accurately performed. We attempted to assess the collection procedure by having the child and/or the parent complete a questionnaire to assess compliance with the collection instructions. Our procedure reflects what occurs in clinical practice, because neither the physician who requests the urine nor the nurse who gives the instructions is involved in observing or performing the collection of the urine. In any case, any unreported noncompliance with the allocated procedure should have reduced differences in contamination rates between the 2 study groups.
|
CONCLUSIONS |
|---|
|
TOPABSTRACTMETHODSRESULTSDISCUSSIONCONCLUSIONSREFERENCES |
|---|
|
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS |
|---|
Duncan Lejtenyi, Aileen Frew, and the nurses of the Montreal Children's Hospital Emergency Department assisted in recruiting children into the trial. Sebastian Dube provided statistical assistance. Dr Kramer is a Senior Investigator of the Canadian Institutes of Health Research.
|
FOOTNOTES |
|---|
Address correspondence to Suzanne Vaillancourt, MD, Montreal Children's Hospital, Place Tourelles, 2222 Blvd Rene Levesque Ouest, First Floor, Room T131-C, Montreal, Quebec, Canada H3H 1P3. E-mail: suzanne.vaillancourt{at}mail.mcgill.ca
The authors have indicated they have no financial relationships relevant to this article to disclose.
|
REFERENCES |
|---|
|
TOPABSTRACTMETHODSRESULTSDISCUSSIONCONCLUSIONSREFERENCES |
|---|
This article has been cited by other articles:
 |
|
 |
|
  Midstream Urine Samples in Children: Clean First, Then Collect Journal Watch Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine, June 20, 2007; 2007(620): 2 - 2. [Full Text]
|
|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 |
||
|
||
Home | My Pediatrics | Journal Information | Current Issue | Past Issues | Subscriptions & Services | Contact Us Click here for faster international access © 2007 American Academy of Pediatrics. All rights reserved. |
||
|
||
