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 3 Resistance rates of the five most commonly isolated uropathogens from patients 65 years old or older in Vestfold County, Norway 2010: females compared to males (irrespective of residence)

	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	680 (32)	100 (33)	0.74	0	0		Res^c	Res		11 (11)	5 (12)	0.99	Res	Res
Ciprofloxacin^d	153 (7)	36 (12)	0.03^h	NA^e	NA^e		5 (3)	4 (8)	0.12	8 (8)	2 (5)	0.72	4 (11)	1 (4)	0.38
Mecillinam	74 (4)	13 (4)	0.51	NA^f	NA^f		13 (8)	4 (8)	0.32	2 (2)	5 (12)	0.02^h	Res	Res
Nitrofurantoin	39 (2)	3 (1)	0.54	0	0		Res	Res		Res	Res		Res	Res
Trimethoprim^g	490 (23)	59 (20)	0.36	65 (29)	34 (25)	0.1	27 (16)	13 (27)	0.1	22 (22)	4 (10)	0.4	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