The risk of urine bacterial colonisation in patients with a permanent catheter after caesarean section

Abstract

We present an observational study, conducted in Slovakia, concerning the occurrence of newly acquired urine colonisations in women with Foley catheters after a Caesarean section. A sample of urine was taken from each patient when the Foley catheter was first inserted, before the operation and was sent to the lab for culture. Later, a sample of urine was taken during the removal of the Foley catheter. Out of 176 women, the second urine sample culture result was positive in 13 women. Of those nine women had a positive pathogenic strain (5.1%). The prevalence of asymptomatic bacteriuria in our cohort was 7.7%. De novo acquired colonisation of urine was confirmed in 5.1% of cases. The only confirmed risk factor was delivery by an acute Caesarean section.

Impact statement

• What is already known on this subject?: It is well known that catheterisation increases risk of colonisation of lower urinary tract by pathogens. However, the extent of this risk is not determined because there are no studies of de novo colonisation in women with sterile urine before catheterisation. According to literature approximately 8% of women have asymptomatic bacteriuria, which could be confounding factor in previous studies.

• What do the results of this study add?: Our study excluded women with positive bacteriuria before insertion of Foley catheter. Therefore, the study only assesses de novo colonisation, dependent on insertion of Foley catheter during caesarean section.

• What are the implications of these findings for clinical practice and/or further research?: De novo colonisation was observed in 5.1% of women in our cohort, with emergency caesarean section as a confirmed risk factor. Therefore, practitioners should consider avoiding catheterisation during caesarean section.

Keywords:

• Caesarean section
• Foley catheter
• asymptomatic bacteriuria
• urinary tract infection
• nosocomial infection

Disclosure statement

The authors report no conflicts of interest.