Antibiotic resistance patterns of bacteria causing urinary tract infections in the elderly living in nursing homes versus the elderly living at home: an observational study

Table 2 Resistance rates of the five most commonly isolated uropathogens from patients living in nursing homes (NH) compared to community dwelling elderly (CD) in Vestfold County, Norway 2010

	E coli			E faecalis ^a			K pneumoniae			P mirabilis			P aeruginosa
	NH	CD		NH	CD		NH	CD		NH	CD		NH	CD
	n (%)	n (%)	p-value	n (%)	n (%)	p-value	n (%)	n (%)	p-value	n (%)	n (%)	p-value	n (%)	n (%)	p-value
Ampicillin^b	48 (32)	732 (32)	0.95	0	0		Res^c	Res		2 (17)	14 (11)	0.63	Res	Res
Ciprofloxacin^d	14 (10)	175 (8)	0.08	NA^e	NA^e		2 (18)	7 (3)	0.07	3 (25)	7 (5)	0.04^h	0 (0)	5 (9)	0.6
Mecillinam	4 (3)	83 (3.6)	0.82	NA^f	NA^f		1 (9)	16 (8)	0.62	1 (8)	6 (5)	0.51	Res	Res
Nitrofurantoin	3 (2)	39 (2)	0.76	0	0		Res	Res		Res	Res		Res	Res
Trimethoprim^g	36 (24)	513 (23)	0.1	6 (32)	93 (27)	0.69	1 (9)	39 (19)	0.46	3 (25)	23 (18)	0.79	Res	Res

^aResistance rate for Vancomycin was 0 % in both groups
^bFor E coli, and P mirabilis intermediate (I) is classified as sensitive (S) according to recommendations from Norwegian Working Group on Antibiotics
^cRes: Resistant
^d(S) classified as (I) if the microbe in question is resistant (R) for nalidixic acid
^eNA: not applicable. Minimum inhibitory concentrations are so high that ciprofloxacin is not recommended for infections due to E Faecalis
^fNA: not applicable. Mecillinam is ineffective against E Faecalis in vitro
^gFor E faecalis intermediate (I) is classified as sensitive (S)
^hSignificant at α = 5 %

ISSN: 1471-2318