Management of Urosepsis in 2018.

Despite optimal treatment, urosepsis has still high morbidity and mortality rates. An updated definition and classification system for sepsis have recently been introduced. Management of urosepsis comprises four major aspects: (1) early diagnosis, (2) early empiric intravenous antimicrobial treatment, (3) identification and control of complicating factors, and (4) specific sepsis therapy. The quick sequential organ failure assessment is replacing the systemic inflammatory response syndrome scoring for rapid identification of patients with urosepsis. PATIENT SUMMARY: Urosepsis is a serious, life-threatening complication of infections originating from the urinary tract. As urosepsis has a very high mortality rate, it is important that is quickly spotted and that appropriate treatment is swiftly begun. Imaging of urinary tract disorders has been shown to be useful in decreasing mortality from urosepsis, and in the future microbiology techniques may also prove useful. Given the severity of urosepsis and the associated risks, large efforts need to be made to prevent high-risk infections in hospitals with appropriate prevention measures, such as the early removal of catheters used whenever possible.

Non-molecular Methods to Detect Bacteriuria Prior to Urological Interventions: A Diagnostic Accuracy Systematic Review.

Urine culture still has to be considered as the gold standard to rule out bacteriuria and should, therefore, be obtained prior to invasive endoscopic or open urological procedures to minimize the risk of severe infectious complications.

Antimicrobial resistance in urosepsis: outcomes from the multinational, multicenter global prevalence of infections in urology (GPIU) study 2003-2013.

OBJECTIVE: Primary objective was to identify the (1) relationship of clinical severity of urosepsis with the pathogen spectrum and resistance and (2) appropriateness of using the pathogen spectrum and resistance rates of health-care-associated urinary tract infections (HAUTI) as representative of urosepsis. The secondary objective was to provide an overview of the pathogens and their resistance profile in patients with urosepsis. POPULATION AND METHODS: A point prevalence study carried out in 70 countries (2003-2013). Population studied included; 408 individuals with microbiologically proven urosepsis, 1606 individuals with microbiological proof of HAUTI and 27,542 individuals hospitalised in urology wards. Main outcomes are pathogens and resistance identified in HAUTIs and urosepsis including its clinical severity. A statistical model that included demographic factors (study year, geographical location, hospital setting) was used for analysis. RESULTS: Amongst urology practices, the prevalence of microbiologically proven HAUTI and urosepsis was 5.8 and 1.5 %, respectively. Frequent pathogens in urosepsis were E. coli (43 %), Enterococcus spp. (11 %), P. aeruginosa (10 %) and Klebsiella spp. (10 %). Resistance to commonly prescribed antibiotics was high and rates ranged from 8 % (imipenem) to 62 % (aminopenicillin/ß lactamase inhibitors); 45 % of Enterobacteriaceae and 21 % of P. aeruginosa were multidrug-resistant. Resistance rates in urosepsis were higher than in other clinical diagnosis of HAUTI (Likelihood ratio <0.05). CONCLUSIONS: It is not appropriate to use the pathogen spectrum and resistance rates of other HAUTIs as representative of urosepsis to decide on empirical treatment of urosepsis. Resistance rates in urosepsis are high, and precautions should be made to avoid further increase.