Skip to main content

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

From: 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

  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
Ampicillinb 48 (32) 732 (32) 0.95 0 0   Resc Res   2 (17) 14 (11) 0.63 Res Res  
Ciprofloxacind 14 (10) 175 (8) 0.08 NAe NAe   2 (18) 7 (3) 0.07 3 (25) 7 (5) 0.04h 0 (0) 5 (9) 0.6
Mecillinam 4 (3) 83 (3.6) 0.82 NAf NAf   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  
Trimethoprimg 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  
  1. aResistance rate for Vancomycin was 0 % in both groups
  2. bFor E coli, and P mirabilis intermediate (I) is classified as sensitive (S) according to recommendations from Norwegian Working Group on Antibiotics
  3. cRes: Resistant
  4. d(S) classified as (I) if the microbe in question is resistant (R) for nalidixic acid
  5. eNA: not applicable. Minimum inhibitory concentrations are so high that ciprofloxacin is not recommended for infections due to E Faecalis
  6. fNA: not applicable. Mecillinam is ineffective against E Faecalis in vitro
  7. gFor E faecalis intermediate (I) is classified as sensitive (S)
  8. hSignificant at α = 5 %