Prerpints.org logo
Preprint
Article

Pregnancy Outcomes in Patients with Urosepsis and Uncomplicated Urinary Tract Infections- a Retrospective Study

Altmetrics

Downloads

109

Views

51

Comments

0

A peer-reviewed article of this preprint also exists.

Submitted:

08 November 2023

Posted:

09 November 2023

You are already at the latest version

Alerts
Abstract
(1) Background: Urinary tract infections (UTIs) are an important cause of perinatal and maternal morbidity and mortality. The aim of this study was to describe and compare the main pregnancy outcomes among pregnant patients with complicated and uncomplicated UTIs; (2) Methods: This retrospective study included 183 pregnant patients who were evaluated for uncomplicated UTIs and urosepsis in the Urology Department of ‘C.I. Parhon’ University Hospital, and who were followed up at a tertiary maternity hospital- ‘Cuza-voda’ from Romania between January 2014 and October 2023. The control group (183 patients) was randomly selected from the patient’s cohort who gave birth in the same time frame at the maternity hospital without urinary pathology. Clinical and paraclinical data was examined. Descriptive statistics and a conditional logistic regression model were used to analyze our data. (3) Results: Our results indicated that patients with urosepsis had increased risk of premature rupture of membranes (aOR: 5.59, 95%CI: 2.02- 15.40, p< 0.001) and preterm birth (aOR: 2.47, 95%CI: 1.15- 5.33, p= 0.02). We could not demonstrate a statistically significant association between intrauterine growth restriction and preeclampsia with the studied urological pathologies. (4) Conclusions: Careful UTIs screening during pregnancy is needed for preventing maternal-fetal complications.
Keywords: 
Subject: Medicine and Pharmacology  -   Obstetrics and Gynaecology

1. Introduction

Urinary tract infections (UTI) are a common finding during pregnancy that could lead to important perinatal and maternal morbidity and mortality [1]. Due to heterogenous epidemiological reports, the current incidence of UTIs in pregnancy is estimated to fall in the 4- 47% interval around the globe [2,3,4]. Several risk factors and physiologic changes in pregnancy play an important role in the development and spread of UTIs. Current literature identified as predisposing factors for UTIs the following: ethnicity, advanced maternal age, multiparity, hydronephrosis in pregnancy, personal history of UTI, immunosuppressive conditions (e.g., diabetes mellitus), anemia, smoking, low educational level or socioeconomic status [5,6,7].
The maternal complications associated with UTI include chorioamnionitis, premature rupture of membranes, preterm labor, hypertensive disorders of pregnancy (such as pregnancy-induced hypertension and preeclampsia), and anemia [8,9,10].
Another important complication associated with complicated UTIs is represented by preterm birth. It can be also determined by multiple pregnancies, congenital abnormalities, chronic maternal conditions (diabetes, hypertension, autoimmune disorders, abdominal or uterine tumors, etc), in vitro fertilization (IVF), extremes of ages or weight, maternal use of illicit drugs or alcohol, psychiatric comorbidities or current pregnancy complications that require an iatrogenic preterm birth [11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19,20,21].
Neonatal complications that are associated with UTI include sepsis and pneumonia (specifically, group B Streptococcus infection), intrauterine growth restriction, stillbirth, and a higher rate of neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) admissions [22,23,24].
In the presence of typical urinary symptoms such as dysuria, frequency, and urgency, it is mandatory to perform a urine culture, regardless of the gestational age. Moreover, routine urinalysis during pregnancy can detect the presence of UTIs, even before they become symptomatic [25,26]. Escherichia coli (E. coli), Proteus mirabilis, Klebsiella pneumoniae (K. pneumoniae), Group B streptococcus (GBS), and Staphylococcus saprophyticus are among the most commonly identified pathogens in the pregnant patients’ urinary cultures UTIs [27,28]. On the other hand, less common organisms such as Enterococci, Chlamydia trachomatis, and Ureaplasma urealyticum can also determine UTIs [29,30].
UTIs comprise a wide range of pathological entities that can be represented by asymptomatic bacteriuria, cystitis, pyelonephritis, and that can complicate with renal abscesses or urosepsis. Sepsis is a systemic host response to infection that causes acute organ failure and is primarily caused by the source of infection [31].
The maternal sepsis definitions underwent several revisions over time. In 1991, a set of criteria was developed, characterizing sepsis in terms of the inflammatory response and other host physiologic characteristics [32]. There were four categories, beginning with systemic inflammatory response syndrome (SIRS) and ending with septic shock.
Evidence-based recommendations on sepsis and septic shock were developed by the Surviving Sepsis Campaign (SSC) in 2002 to enhance the diagnosis accuracy of sepsis and minimize mortality [33]. Early treatment with intravenous antibiotics and appropriate fluid resuscitation was emphasized in these recommendations. Within the treatment plans, physicians were expected to use a method known as "early, goal-directed therapy" (EGDT) to reach predetermined hemodynamic targets [34]. SSC recommendations have been updated many times since their first publication between 2004 and 2016 [35]
Recommendations from a task team led to changes in sepsis nomenclature in 2016. Because of the complexity and potential mortality of sepsis, new criteria have been developed to distinguish it from simple infection. Third International Consensus Definitions for Sepsis and Septic Shock, published in 2016, included the Sepsis-related Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) and the quick Sepsis-related Organ Failure Assessment (qSOFA), both of which use SIRS as their guiding diagnostic principle [36]. Due to changes made to the definition in 2016, SIRS was no longer a diagnostic category [35]. Septic shock was redescribed as "life-threatening organ failure induced by a dysregulated host response to infection", and the phrase "severe sepsis" was eliminated from usage since it was unnecessary.
The World Health Organization (WHO) developed an evidence-based definition of maternal sepsis soon after the 2016 updates on sepsis [37]. Maternal sepsis was defined as "a life-threatening illness with organ failure originating from infection during pregnancy, delivery, postabortion, or the postpartum period," which is consistent with the sepsis criteria used in nonpregnant individuals in 2016.
Urosepsis is a potential life-threatening condition, associated with important mortality and morbidity. It is estimated that between 9% to 31% of all sepsis cases are represented by urosepsis [38]. A prospective study in Ireland on 150,043 pregnant patients reported an incidence of maternal sepsis of 1.81 per 1000 pregnant women [39]. The same study indicated that the majority of maternal sepsis cases were antenatally diagnosed (46 out of 272 cases), and urosepsis was identified in 21 cases (45.6%), being the main responsible of maternal sepsis. Escherichia coli caused 55% of all antenatally diagnosed sepsis, followed by GBS infection (4%).
Management of maternal urosepsis includes early antibiotic initiation, fluid resuscitation, administration of vasopressors [40]. A prompt recognition of maternal urosepsis is extremely important in order to prevent adverse pregnancy outcomes such as preterm birth and perinatal mortality [41,42].
Given limited data regarding the pregnancy outcomes in patients with simple UTIs or complicated UTIs, specifically urosepsis, we have designed our research as a retrospective study which aimed to describe and compare the pregnancy outcomes in these groups of patients compared with controls.

2. Materials and Methods

Between January 2014 and October 2023, we performed retrospective observational research on pregnant women who had urosepsis and uncomplicated UTIs at the Urology Department of the 'C.I. Parhon' University Hospital in Iasi, Romania. All patients were followed up at a tertiary maternity hospital- ‘Cuza-Voda’, Iasi, Romania. The control group comprised of women who gave birth at the same time as the other patients but had no urological disorders
This study was approved by Institutional Ethical Review Boards at both the 'Cuza-Voda' Maternity Hospital (No. 6778/24.08.2022) and the 'C.I. Parhon' University Hospital (No. 1808/04.03.2022). All individuals provided informed consent before to inclusion in the research. All procedures were performed in compliance with applicable regulations and standards.
We conducted a thorough data collection and analysis by evaluating the medical records of participants. Exclusion criteria were represented by pregnant patients with asymptomatic bacteriuria, who had multifetal gestations, ectopic pregnancies, first and second trimester abortions, intrauterine fetal death, fetuses with genetic or anatomic abnormalities, intrauterine infection, incomplete medical records, or were could not provide informed consent due to various motifs (age less than 18 years old, intellectual deficits, psychiatric comorbidities, etc.).
62 pregnant patients were diagnosed with urosepsis at 'C.I. Parhon' University Hospital, and were included in the first study group. The second study group comprised 121 pregnant patients with uncomplicated urinary tract infections, while the third group (controls) included 183 patients without urinary tract infection.
The following data were recorded: demographic data, the patient’s comorbidities, laboratory results (leucocyte number, CRP, procalcitonin, estimated glomerular filtration rate-eGFR, and urine culture result), associated medical treatment, type of complications, and pregnancy outcomes (type of birth, newborn’s gender, Apgar score, preterm birth, premature rupture of membranes, fetal growth restriction, preeclampsia, thrombotic complications, neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) admission, fetal death, and the presence of post-partum UTIs and vaginal infections).
Estimated glomerular filtration rate was calculated using the Modification of Diet in Renal Disease (MDRD) formula using age, sex, race, and serum creatinine concentration as parameters [43].
A 5 mL blood sample was retrieved from patients for PCT and CRP determination. Procalcitonin was measured in 1 mL of serum using the electrochemiluminescence immunoassay ECLIA (Elecsys BRAHMS PCT, Roche, United States of America), with a limit of detection of 0.02 ng/mL. Latex immunoturbidimetric assay (Hycount 5 – CRP, Hycel Handelsgesellschaft m.b.H., Schwechat, Austria) was used to determine CRP values from a 0.5 mL of serum, using a detection limit of 0.15 mg/L.
Diagnostic criteria for acute pyelonephritis were flank discomfort, nausea or vomiting, a high fever (>38 ◦C), and/or soreness at the costovertebral angle, regardless of the presence or absence of cystitis symptoms [44]. A positive urine culture was defined in the presence of more than 105 colony-forming units (CFU)/mL. Urinary pathogens and their sensibility to antibiotics were determined by urine culture and antibiogram. According to the quick sepsis-related organ failure assessment (qSOFA), urosepsis was identified in individuals who met at least two of the following criteria: (1) respiratory rate of 22 breaths/min or more; (2) altered consciousness (Glasgow Coma Scale score of less than 13); (3) systolic blood pressure of 100 mmHg or less [35].
Statistical analysis was performed using STATA SE software (version 17, 2021, StataCorp LLC, College Station, TX, USA). The relationship between unfavorable pregnancy outcomes and forms of urinary tract infections was evaluated using a conditional logistic regression (CLR) model, and the adjusted odds ratios (aOR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were obtained for each variable of interest. A p value less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.

3. Results

A total of 183 pregnant women with urological disorders who were admitted at ‘C.I. Parhon’ University Hospital during our study period were included in our study. A group of 183 patients, who gave birth at ‘Cuza Voda’ Hospital, without urological illnesses and interventions during pregnancy served as our control group. The demographic characteristics, comorbidities, and pregnancy outcomes of cases and controls are presented in Table 1.
Our data indicated that patients with urosepsis had significantly more immunosuppressive conditions (p<0.001), ureterohydronephrosis (p<0.001), pyelonephritis (p<0.001), and nephrolithiasis (p= 0.04) compared to other groups. Moreover, the time interval between the onset of urinary symptoms and hospital admission for further investigations was higher for patients with urosepsis compared to patients with uncomplicated UTIs (5.00±1.72 versus 2.78±1.31, p<0.001).
The gestational age at diagnosis was significantly higher for patients with uncomplicated UTIs compared patients with urosepsis (29.17±5.44 versus 25.47±6.29 weeks, p= 0.01). Regarding pregnancy outcomes, patients with urosepsis had significantly more premature rupture of membranes (p<0.001) and preterm births (p<0.001) compared to other groups. Moreover, patients with urosepsis gave birth to newborns who had significantly more neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) admissions rates (p<0.001). No maternal or fetal death was recorded in our study. The rates of thrombotic complications were similar among groups.
The rates of post-partum UTIs (p<0.001), and vaginal infections (p<0.001) were significantly higher for patients with history of urosepsis. The most frequent pathogens responsible for post-partum UTI in this group were Escherichia coli (10 cases, 50%), Klebsiella spp. (3 cases, 15%), Enterococcus spp. (3 cases, 15%), followed by Serratia spp. (2 cases, 10%) and Staphylococcus spp. (2 cases, 10%). These UTI were treated with Amoxicillin-clavulanic acid 1 g b.i.d or Cefuroxime 1.5 g b.i.d in the post-partum period for 10-14 days.
On the other hand, the most frequent pathogens that determined post-partum vaginal infections were Candida albicans (3 cases, 21.4%), Escherichia coli (2 cases, 14.2%), Klebsiella spp. (1 case, 7.1%), and Proteus mirabilis (1 case, 7.1%). The fungal vaginal infections were treated with vaginal suppositories of Nystatin 100,00 UI or Fluconazole 150 mg q.d. for 10 days. For the remaining vaginal infections, we administered Amoxicillin-clavulanic acid 1 g b.i.d or Cefuroxime 1.5 g b.i.d in the post-partum period for 10-14 days.
The paraclinical characteristics of the patients with urological disorders during admission to urology department are presented in Table 2. The mean values and standard deviations (SDs) of pretreatment leukocytosis and serum CRP were significantly higher for patients diagnosed with urosepsis compared to the second group (leucocytes: 18,916.67± 3356.74/ mm3 versus 14,691± 2636.38/ mm3, p< 0.001; CRP: 131.38± 70.72 mg/l versus 81.7± 70.34 mg/l, p= 0.004). The same findings were determined in case of posttreatment values of leukocytosis and serum CRP (leucocytes: 15,672.78± 3582.62 / mm3 versus 12,177.78± 2076.41/ mm3, p< 0.001; CRP: 88.30± 56.34 mg/l versus 63.49± 44.02 mg/l, p= 0.041).
The main pathogens that determined uncomplicated urinary tract infection were Escherichia coli (n=87; 71.9%), and Streptococcus spp. (n=17; 14%), followed by Klebsiella spp. (n=10; 8.2%) and Staphylococcus spp. (n=6; 4.9%). On the other hand, the main pathogens that determined urosepsis were Escherichia coli (n=38; 61.2%), Klebsiella spp. (n=12; 19.3%), Enterococcus spp. (n=3; 4.8%), Serratia spp. (n=2; 3.2%), and Staphylococcus spp. (n=2; 3.2%).
Uncomplicated urinary tract infections were treated with Amoxicillin-clavulanic acid 1 g b.i.d or Cefuroxime 1.5 g b.i.d in the post-partum period for 10-14 days. Urosepsis cases were evaluated in the intensive care unit, and received Ceftriaxone 2g b.i.d, Piperacillin/tazobactam 4.5 g t.i.d or Meropenem 1 g t.i.d (for multiresistant bacteria), along with supportive treatment.
The results of the CLR model with adjusted odds-ratios are displayed in Table 3. The presence of an urosepsis diagnosis during pregnancy was associated with increased odds of premature rupture of membranes (aOR: 5.59, 95%CI: 2.02- 15.40, p< 0.001) and preterm birth (aOR: 2.47, 95%CI: 1.15- 5.33, p= 0.02). On the other hand, none of the urological disorders were associated with adverse pregnancies outcomes such as intrauterine growth restriction (p= 0.66), preeclampsia (p= 0.22), NICU admission (p= 0.06) or ARDS (p= 0.42).

4. Discussion

In this retrospective study, we have assessed the pregnancy outcomes in patients who developed uncomplicated UTIs or urosepsis during gestation period compared with controls without urological disorders. Our results indicated that patients with urosepsis had increased risk of premature rupture of membranes (aOR: 5.59, 95%CI: 2.02- 15.40, p< 0.001) and preterm birth (aOR: 2.47, 95%CI: 1.15- 5.33, p= 0.02). The role of urinary infections in the determinism of preterm birth is well established, and immunosuppressive conditions favorize the development of severe forms of infection, as we determined in this study [45,46,47,48,49].
Intrauterine growth restriction and preeclampsia are two pathologic entities that derive from the ischemic placental disorder. Both conditions have been associated in literature with the occurrence of urinary tract infections [50]. A population-based study by Mazor-Dray et al., on a cohort of 199,099 deliveries, demonstrated that patients with UTI had significantly higher rates of intra-uterine growth restriction, preeclampsia, caesarean deliveries, and pre-term deliveries [23]. Although our results confirmed the association between urosepsis and preterm deliveries, we could not demonstrate a statistically significant association between the other pregnancy outcomes such as IUGR and preeclampsia, mainly due to a small cohort of patients. It is important to note that the current data in the literature is scarce regarding the description of adverse pregnancy outcomes in urosepsis context.
Another finding of this study showed that patients with urosepsis gave birth to newborns who had significantly more NICU admissions rates. This observation might be validated by the fact that preterm newborns often experience increased morbidity, and need specialized care in NICUs [51,52]. Moreover, it was demonstrated that maternal UTI during pregnancy increases the risk of congenital malformations [53,54,55], but this aspect was not observed in our cohort of patients. Also, no neonatal deaths were recorded in the study groups.
Both patients who developed uncomplicated UTIs and urosepsis presented risk factors for such conditions, but they were more prevalent in the urosepsis group. For example, in our study we found that patients with urosepsis had significantly more diagnoses of ureterohydronephrosis, pyelonephritis, nephrolithiasis, and double-J ureteric stenting. Moreover, the time interval between the onset of urinary symptoms and hospital admission for further investigations was higher for patients with urosepsis compared to patients with uncomplicated UTIs. All these are known risk factors for developing UTIs in pregnancy [6,56], and we hypothesize that the longer timeframe until admission to urology department in case of patients with urosepsis constitute an important aggravating factor.
Escherichia coli, Klebsiella spp., and Enterococcus spp. were the main determinants of UTIs in our cohort of patients. This bacterial spectrum corresponds to the pathogenic microorganisms associated with UTI in pregnancy [47,57,58,59]. Postpartum UTI were more frequently encountered in the urosepsis group, and the bacterial spectrum responsible for postpartum UTI was similar to that described by the urine culture taken during pregnancy, with Escherichia coli, Klebsiella spp., and Enterococcus spp. being the most prevalent.
Procalcitonin is a serum prohormone that increases in the presence of endotoxins and pro-inflammatory mediators in the context of tissue damage, systemic inflammation, and especially severe bacterial infection [60]. It is a relatively new biomarker that outperforms the traditional biomarkers such as C-reactive protein and leukocytes count when used for the diagnosis of bacterial infection and for the monitoring of antibiotic therapy [61,62].
Although CRP is not a very specific test for sepsis, it does have a very high negative predictive value [63]. Moreover, it has a longer latent period when compared with PCT (6 versus 2 hours) [64,65]. The PCT serum levels rapidly increase during the first hours of severe bacterial infections, and can support the decision for early antibiotic administration in severe bacterial infections [66].
Due to its elevated levels during pregnancy, leucocyte count has limited potential as a biomarker of infection and inflammation [67]. On the other hand, it was demonstrated a significant rise in PCT serum levels in gram-negative infections compared to gram-positive [68]. In cases of severe obstetric infections, E. coli is the most often detected pathogen in blood cultures [39]. A PCT value between 2-10 ng/mL indicates that a systemic infection is possible, and in our study the mean PCT value and standard deviation for patients in the urosepsis group were 5.22± 1.35 ng/mL. Also, the CRP and leucocyte values were significantly higher for the urosepsis group compared to the second group.
Acute kidney injury (AKI) can be a result of a septic state. A prospective observational study by Gopalakrishnan et al., on 130 patients, reported an incidence of acute kidney injury in pregnancy of 7.8%, and it was determined in the majority of cases (39%) by maternal sepsis [69]. However, since the RIFLE (Risk, Injury, Failure, Loss, and End stage) criteria, the KDIGO (Kidney Disease Improving Outcomes) recommendations, and the AKI Network (AKIN) criteria have not been validated in the pregnant population, the prevalence of pregnancy-related AKI is difficult to ascertain [70,71].
No maternal and fetal deaths were recorded in our cohort of patients, and this finding is in line with previous reports [39]. However, obstetrical sepsis remains an important cause of mortality, with a rate between 8% and 14% for patients with septic shock [40,68,72]. Shields et al., outlined the idea that clinicians should maintain a high index of suspicion for maternal sepsis, especially in the context of non-specific symptoms [73]. This perspective would allow them to promptly apply sepsis scoring systems, and to initialize early antibiotic treatment.
The main limitation of our study is that small cohort of patients. On the other hand, this study retrospectively identified urosepsis cases that were treated in a regional center from Romania, in an 8-years’ time-frame, and could serve as a basis for other observational studies, on larger cohorts of patients.

5. Conclusions

Adverse pregnancy outcomes are more prevalent in both urosepsis and uncomplicated urinary tract infections cases compared to controls, but our results indicated that a previous diagnosis of urosepsis in pregnancy significantly increased the odds of premature rupture of membranes and preterm birth.
Careful monitoring of pregnant patients, especially in the presence of risk factors such as nephrolithiasis, ureterohydronephrosis, and double-J ureteric stenting, is extremely important for early detection of UTIs, and for preventing their progression to infectious complications.
Early identification of risk factors that promote urinary tract complications, especially during pregnancy, could determine a swift in the monitoring and therapeutic approaches towards a more active stance. Moreover, clinicians could include these risk factors in the counselling sessions of pregnant patients and inform them about the possible adverse outcomes.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, V-D.R, P.V., A.C., A-M.-A, A-S. M-P., V.H., G.A., and C.P.; methodology, P.O., D.S., I-A.V., A.H., and M. M-P; software, I-S.S., E.M., M. S-C.,. and P.O.; validation, V-D.R, P.V., A.C., A-M.-A, A-S. M-P., V.H., G.A., and C.P.; formal analysis, D.S., I-A.V., A.H., and M. M-P; investigation, V-D.R, P.V., A.C., A-M.-A, A-S. M-P., V.H., G.A., and M.S-C.; ;resources, D.S., I-A.V., A.H., and M. M-P; data curation, I-S.S., E.M., M.S-C.,. and P.O; writing—original draft preparation, V-D.R, P.V., A.C., A-M.-A, A-S. M-P., V.H., G.A., and C.P.; writing—review and editing, V-D.R, P.O., D.S., I-A.V., A.H., and M. M-P; visualization, I-A.V.; supervision, V-D.R.; project administration, V.H.; All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

The study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki, and approved by the Institutional Ethics Committee of Ethical approval for this study was obtained from the Institutional Ethics Committees of ‘Cuza-Voda’ Maternity Hospital (No. 2871/05.03.2022) and ‘C.I. Parhon’ University Hospital (No. 1808/04.03.2022).

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.

Data Availability Statement

The data presented in this study are available on request from the corresponding author. The data are not publicly available due to local policies.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Gilbert NM, O'brien VP, Hultgren S, Macones G, Lewis WG, Lewis AL. Urinary tract infection as a preventable cause of pregnancy complications: opportunities, challenges, and a global call to action. Global advances in health and medicine. 2013;2(5):59-69. [CrossRef]
  2. Elzayat MA-A, Barnett-Vanes A, Dabour MFE, Cheng F. Prevalence of undiagnosed asymptomatic bacteriuria and associated risk factors during pregnancy: a cross-sectional study at two tertiary centres in Cairo, Egypt. BMJ open. 2017;7(3):e013198. [CrossRef]
  3. Lee AC, Mullany LC, Koffi AK, Rafiqullah I, Khanam R, Folger LV, et al. Urinary tract infections in pregnancy in a rural population of Bangladesh: population-based prevalence, risk factors, etiology, and antibiotic resistance. BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth. 2020;20(1):1-11. [CrossRef]
  4. Tadesse E, Teshome M, Merid Y, Kibret B, Shimelis T. Asymptomatic urinary tract infection among pregnant women attending the antenatal clinic of Hawassa Referral Hospital, Southern Ethiopia. BMC research notes. 2014;7(1):1-5. [CrossRef]
  5. Johnson CY, Rocheleau CM, Howley MM, Chiu SK, Arnold KE, Ailes EC. Characteristics of Women with Urinary Tract Infection in Pregnancy. J Womens Health (Larchmt). 2021;30(11):1556-64. [CrossRef]
  6. Radu VD, Vasilache IA, Costache RC, Scripcariu IS, Nemescu D, Carauleanu A, et al. Pregnancy Outcomes in a Cohort of Patients Who Underwent Double-J Ureteric Stenting-A Single Center Experience. Medicina (Kaunas). 2022;58(5). [CrossRef]
  7. Dinç A. Prevalence of Urinary Incontinence During Pregnancy and Associated Risk Factors. Low Urin Tract Symptoms. 2018;10(3):303-7. [CrossRef]
  8. LeFevre M. Urinary tract infections during pregnancy. American family physician. 2000;61(3):713-20.
  9. Kalinderi K, Delkos D, Kalinderis M, Athanasiadis A, Kalogiannidis I. Urinary tract infection during pregnancy: current concepts on a common multifaceted problem. J Obstet Gynaecol. 2018;38(4):448-53. [CrossRef]
  10. Yan L, Jin Y, Hang H, Yan B. The association between urinary tract infection during pregnancy and preeclampsia: A meta-analysis. Medicine (Baltimore). 2018;97(36):e12192. [CrossRef]
  11. Văduva C-C, Constantinescu C, Radu MM, Văduva AR, Pănuş A, Ţenovici M, et al. Pregnancy resulting from IMSI after testicular biopsy in a patient with obstructive azoospermia. Rom J Morphol Embryol. 2016;57:879-83.
  12. Albu DF, Albu CC, Văduva C-C, Niculescu M, Edu A. Diagnosis problems in a case of ovarian tumor-case presentation. Romanian Journal of Morphology and Embryology= Revue Roumaine de Morphologie et Embryologie. 2016;57(4):1437-42.
  13. Enătescu I, Craina M, Gluhovschi A, Giurgi-Oncu C, Hogea L, Nussbaum LA, et al. The role of personality dimensions and trait anxiety in increasing the likelihood of suicide ideation in women during the perinatal period. J Psychosom Obstet Gynaecol. 2021;42(3):242-52. [CrossRef]
  14. Enatescu VR, Bernad E, Gluhovschi A, Papava I, Romosan R, Palicsak A, et al. Perinatal characteristics and mother's personality profile associated with increased likelihood of postpartum depression occurrence in a Romanian outpatient sample. J Ment Health. 2017;26(3):212-9. [CrossRef]
  15. Adam AM, Vasilache IA, Socolov D, Stuparu Cretu M, Georgescu CV, Vicoveanu P, et al. Risk Factors Associated with Severe Disease and Intensive Care Unit Admission of Pregnant Patients with COVID-19 Infection-A Retrospective Study. J Clin Med. 2022;11(20). [CrossRef]
  16. Socolov D, Socolov R, Gorduza VE, Butureanu T, Stanculescu R, Carauleanu A, et al. Increased nuchal translucency in fetuses with a normal karyotype-diagnosis and management: An observational study. Medicine (Baltimore). 2017;96(29):e7521. [CrossRef]
  17. Covali R, Socolov D, Socolov R, Pavaleanu I, Carauleanu A, Akad M, et al. Complete Blood Count Peculiarities in Pregnant SARS-CoV-2-Infected Patients at Term: A Cohort Study. Diagnostics (Basel). 2021;12(1). [CrossRef]
  18. Nemescu D, Constantinescu D, Gorduza V, Carauleanu A, Caba L, Navolan DB. Comparison between paramagnetic and CD71 magnetic activated cell sorting of fetal nucleated red blood cells from the maternal blood. J Clin Lab Anal. 2020;34(9):e23420. [CrossRef]
  19. Iliescu M, Cărăuleanu A. The Portrait of a Good Doctor: Conclusions from a Patients and Medical Students Survey. Revista de Cercetare si Interventie Sociala. 2014;47:261-71.
  20. Cucu A, Costea C, Cărăuleanu A, Dumitrescu G, Sava A, Scripcariu I, et al. Meningiomas Related to the Chernobyl Irradiation Disaster in North-Eastern Romania Between 1990 and 2015. Revista de Chimie -Bucharest- Original Edition-. 2018;69. [CrossRef]
  21. Turliuc D, Turliuc S, Cucu A, Dumitrescu G, Cărăuleanu A, Buzdugă C, et al. A review of analogies between some neuroanatomical terms and roman household objects. Annals of anatomy = Anatomischer Anzeiger: official organ of the Anatomische Gesellschaft. 2015. [CrossRef]
  22. Amiri M, Lavasani Z, Norouzirad R, Najibpour R, Mohamadpour M, Nikpoor AR, et al. Prevalence of urinary tract infection among pregnant women and its complications in their newborns during the birth in the hospitals of Dezful city, Iran, 2012-2013. Iranian Red Crescent Medical Journal. 2015;17(8). [CrossRef]
  23. Mazor-Dray E, Levy A, Schlaeffer F, Sheiner E. Maternal urinary tract infection: is it independently associated with adverse pregnancy outcome? J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2009;22(2):124-8. [CrossRef]
  24. Kayastha B, Tamrakar SR. Maternal and Perinatal Outcome of Urinary Tract Infection in Pregnancy at Dhulikhel Hospital, Kathmandu University Hospital. Kathmandu Univ Med J (KUMJ). 2022;20(77):82-6.
  25. Knottnerus BJ, Geerlings SE, van Charante EPM, Ter Riet G. Toward a simple diagnostic index for acute uncomplicated urinary tract infections. The Annals of Family Medicine. 2013;11(5):442-51. [CrossRef]
  26. de Cueto M, Aliaga L, Alós JI, Canut A, Los-Arcos I, Martínez JA, et al. Executive summary of the diagnosis and treatment of urinary tract infection: Guidelines of the Spanish Society of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases (SEIMC). Enferm Infecc Microbiol Clin. 2017;35(5):314-20. [CrossRef]
  27. Azami M, Jaafari Z, Masoumi M, Shohani M, Badfar G, Mahmudi L, et al. The etiology and prevalence of urinary tract infection and asymptomatic bacteriuria in pregnant women in Iran: a systematic review and Meta-analysis. BMC Urol. 2019;19(1):43. [CrossRef]
  28. Belete MA, Saravanan M. A Systematic Review on Drug Resistant Urinary Tract Infection Among Pregnant Women in Developing Countries in Africa and Asia; 2005-2016. Infect Drug Resist. 2020;13:1465-77. [CrossRef]
  29. Xu WH, Chen JJ, Sun Q, Wang LP, Jia YF, Xuan BB, et al. Chlamydia trachomatis, Ureaplasma urealyticum and Neisseria gonorrhoeae among Chinese women with urinary tract infections in Shanghai: A community-based cross-sectional study. J Obstet Gynaecol Res. 2018;44(3):495-502. [CrossRef]
  30. Nana T, Bhoora S, Chibabhai V. Trends in the epidemiology of urinary tract infections in pregnancy at a tertiary hospital in Johannesburg: Are contemporary treatment recommendations appropriate? S Afr J Infect Dis. 2021;36(1):328. [CrossRef]
  31. Rhodes A, Evans LE, Alhazzani W, Levy MM, Antonelli M, Ferrer R, et al. Surviving sepsis campaign: international guidelines for management of sepsis and septic shock: 2016. Intensive care medicine. 2017;43(3):304-77. [CrossRef]
  32. Bone RC, Balk RA, Cerra FB, Dellinger RP, Fein AM, Knaus WA, et al. Definitions for sepsis and organ failure and guidelines for the use of innovative therapies in sepsis. The ACCP/SCCM Consensus Conference Committee. American College of Chest Physicians/Society of Critical Care Medicine. Chest. 1992;101(6):1644-55. [CrossRef]
  33. Townsend SR, Schorr C, Levy MM, Dellinger RP. Reducing mortality in severe sepsis: the Surviving Sepsis Campaign. Clin Chest Med. 2008;29(4):721-33, x. [CrossRef]
  34. Rivers E, Nguyen B, Havstad S, Ressler J, Muzzin A, Knoblich B, et al. Early goal-directed therapy in the treatment of severe sepsis and septic shock. N Engl J Med. 2001;345(19):1368-77. [CrossRef]
  35. Singer M, Deutschman CS, Seymour CW, Shankar-Hari M, Annane D, Bauer M, et al. The Third International Consensus Definitions for Sepsis and Septic Shock (Sepsis-3). Jama. 2016;315(8):801-10. [CrossRef]
  36. Seymour CW, Liu VX, Iwashyna TJ, Brunkhorst FM, Rea TD, Scherag A, et al. Assessment of clinical criteria for sepsis: for the Third International Consensus Definitions for Sepsis and Septic Shock (Sepsis-3). Jama. 2016;315(8):762-74. [CrossRef]
  37. World Health O. Statement on maternal sepsis. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2017 2017. Contract No.: WHO/RHR/17.02.
  38. Levy MM, Artigas A, Phillips GS, Rhodes A, Beale R, Osborn T, et al. Outcomes of the Surviving Sepsis Campaign in intensive care units in the USA and Europe: a prospective cohort study. The Lancet infectious diseases. 2012;12(12):919-24. [CrossRef]
  39. Knowles SJ, O'Sullivan NP, Meenan AM, Hanniffy R, Robson M. Maternal sepsis incidence, aetiology and outcome for mother and fetus: a prospective study. Bjog. 2015;122(5):663-71. [CrossRef]
  40. Escobar MF, Echavarría MP, Zambrano MA, Ramos I, Kusanovic JP. Maternal sepsis. Am J Obstet Gynecol MFM. 2020;2(3):100149. [CrossRef]
  41. Vaught AJ. Maternal sepsis. Semin Perinatol. 2018;42(1):9-12.
  42. Abir G, Bauer ME. Maternal sepsis update. Curr Opin Anaesthesiol. 2021;34(3):254-9. [CrossRef]
  43. Hafez T. Modification of Diet in Renal Disease (MDRD) estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) formula. Am J Cardiol. 2007;99(4):584. [CrossRef]
  44. Colgan R, Williams M, Johnson JR. Diagnosis and treatment of acute pyelonephritis in women. Am Fam Physician. 2011;84(5):519-26.
  45. Qobadi M, Dehghanifirouzabadi A. Urinary Tract Infection (UTI) and Its Association With Preterm Labor: Findings From the Mississippi Pregnancy Risk Assessment Monitoring System (PRAMS), 2009–2011. Open Forum Infectious Diseases. 2015;2(suppl_1). [CrossRef]
  46. Banhidy F, Acs N, Puho EH, Czeizel AE. Pregnancy complications and birth outcomes of pregnant women with urinary tract infections and related drug treatments. Scandinavian journal of infectious diseases. 2007;39(5):390-7. [CrossRef]
  47. Balachandran L, Jacob L, Al Awadhi R, Yahya LO, Catroon KM, Soundararajan LP, et al. Urinary Tract Infection in Pregnancy and Its Effects on Maternal and Perinatal Outcome: A Retrospective Study. Cureus. 2022;14(1):e21500. [CrossRef]
  48. Harabor V, Mogos R, Nechita A, Adam A-M, Adam G, Melinte-Popescu A-S, et al. Machine Learning Approaches for the Prediction of Hepatitis B and C Seropositivity. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2023;20(3):2380. [CrossRef]
  49. Adam AM, Popa RF, Vaduva C, Georgescu CV, Adam G, Melinte-Popescu AS, et al. Pregnancy Outcomes, Immunophenotyping and Immunohistochemical Findings in a Cohort of Pregnant Patients with COVID-19-A Prospective Study. Diagnostics (Basel). 2023;13(7). [CrossRef]
  50. Bolton M, Horvath DJ, Jr., Li B, Cortado H, Newsom D, White P, et al. Intrauterine growth restriction is a direct consequence of localized maternal uropathogenic Escherichia coli cystitis. PLoS One. 2012;7(3):e33897. [CrossRef]
  51. Cohen R, Gutvirtz G, Wainstock T, Sheiner E. Maternal urinary tract infection during pregnancy and long-term infectious morbidity of the offspring. Early Human Development. 2019;136:54-9. [CrossRef]
  52. Zonda GI, Mogos R, Melinte-Popescu AS, Adam AM, Harabor V, Nemescu D, et al. Hematologic Risk Factors for the Development of Retinopathy of Prematurity-A Retrospective Study. Children (Basel). 2023;10(3). [CrossRef]
  53. Cleves MA, Malik S, Yang S, Carter TC, Hobbs CA. Maternal urinary tract infections and selected cardiovascular malformations. Birth Defects Res A Clin Mol Teratol. 2008;82(6):464-73. [CrossRef]
  54. Howley MM, Feldkamp ML, Papadopoulos EA, Fisher SC, Arnold KE, Browne ML. Maternal genitourinary infections and risk of birth defects in the National Birth Defects Prevention Study. Birth Defects Res. 2018;110(19):1443-54. [CrossRef]
  55. Melinte-Popescu AS, Popa RF, Harabor V, Nechita A, Harabor A, Adam AM, et al. Managing Fetal Ovarian Cysts: Clinical Experience with a Rare Disorder. Medicina (Kaunas). 2023;59(4). [CrossRef]
  56. Mason MM, Nackeeran S, Lokeshwar S, Carino Mason MR, Kohn T, Shah HN, et al. A comparison of adverse pregnancy events between ureteral stents and percutaneous nephrostomy tubes in the treatment of nephrolithiasis during pregnancy: A propensity score-matched analysis of a large multi-institutional research network. World J Urol. 2022. [CrossRef]
  57. Sheiner E, Mazor-Drey E, Levy A. Asymptomatic bacteriuria during pregnancy. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2009;22(5):423-7. [CrossRef]
  58. Geerlings SE. Clinical Presentations and Epidemiology of Urinary Tract Infections. Microbiol Spectr. 2016;4(5). [CrossRef]
  59. Baroi LG, Iacob L, Popa RF. Surgical techniques in the treatment of multilevel arterial occlusive disease. Rev Med Chir Soc Med Nat Iasi. 2014;118(4):1034-9.
  60. Lee H. Procalcitonin as a biomarker of infectious diseases. Korean J Intern Med. 2013;28(3):285-91. [CrossRef]
  61. Simon L, Gauvin F, Amre DK, Saint-Louis P, Lacroix J. Serum procalcitonin and C-reactive protein levels as markers of bacterial infection: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Clin Infect Dis. 2004;39(2):206-17. [CrossRef]
  62. Yo CH, Hsieh PS, Lee SH, Wu JY, Chang SS, Tasi KC, et al. Comparison of the test characteristics of procalcitonin to C-reactive protein and leukocytosis for the detection of serious bacterial infections in children presenting with fever without source: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Ann Emerg Med. 2012;60(5):591-600. [CrossRef]
  63. Bunduki GK, Adu-Sarkodie Y. The usefulness of C-reactive protein as a biomarker in predicting neonatal sepsis in a sub-Saharan African region. BMC Research Notes. 2020;13(1):194. [CrossRef]
  64. Lelubre C, Anselin S, Zouaoui Boudjeltia K, Biston P, Piagnerelli M. Interpretation of C-reactive protein concentrations in critically ill patients. Biomed Res Int. 2013;2013:124021. [CrossRef]
  65. Tujula B, Kokki H, Räsänen J, Kokki M. Procalcitonin; a feasible biomarker for severe bacterial infections in Obstetrics and Gynecology? Acta Obstetricia et Gynecologica Scandinavica. 2018;97(5):505-6. [CrossRef]
  66. Yamashita H, Yuasa N, Takeuchi E, Goto Y, Miyake H, Miyata K, et al. Diagnostic value of procalcitonin for acute complicated appendicitis. Nagoya J Med Sci. 2016;78(1):79-88.
  67. Tan EK, Tan EL. Alterations in physiology and anatomy during pregnancy. Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol. 2013;27(6):791-802. [CrossRef]
  68. Jabbour JP, Ciotti G, Maestrini G, Brescini M, Lisi C, Ielo C, et al. Utility of procalcitonin and C-reactive protein as predictors of Gram-negative bacteremia in febrile hematological outpatients. Support Care Cancer. 2022;30(5):4303-14. [CrossRef]
  69. Gopalakrishnan N, Dhanapriya J, Muthukumar P, Sakthirajan R, Dineshkumar T, Thirumurugan S, et al. Acute kidney injury in pregnancy--a single center experience. Ren Fail. 2015;37(9):1476-80. [CrossRef]
  70. Bellomo R. Acute Dialysis Quality Initiative workgroup. Acute renal failure-definition, outcome measures, animal models, fluid therapy and information technology needs: the Second International Consensus Conference of the Acute Dialysis Quality Initiative (ADQI) Group. Crit care. 2004;8:204-12. [CrossRef]
  71. Taber-Hight E, Shah S. Acute Kidney Injury in Pregnancy. Adv Chronic Kidney Dis. 2020;27(6):455-60. [CrossRef]
  72. Rathod AT, Malini KV. Study of Obstetric Admissions to the Intensive Care Unit of a Tertiary Care Hospital. J Obstet Gynaecol India. 2016;66(Suppl 1):12-7. [CrossRef]
  73. Shields A, de Assis V, Halscott T. Top 10 Pearls for the Recognition, Evaluation, and Management of Maternal Sepsis. Obstet Gynecol. 2021;138(2):289-304. [CrossRef]
Table 1. Demographic characteristics, comorbidities, and pregnancy outcomes of the evaluated groups.
Table 1. Demographic characteristics, comorbidities, and pregnancy outcomes of the evaluated groups.
Variable Group 1 (n= 62 patients with urosepsis) Group 2 (n= 121 patients with uncomplicated UTI) Group 3 (n= 183 patients as controls) P value
Demographic characteristics Age, years (mean ± SD) 29.6±6.19 26.12±5.74 27.8±8.11 0.52
Medium (n/ %) Rural= 32 (51.6%)
Urban= 30 (48.3%)		 Rural= 64 (52.8%)
Urban= 57 (47.1%)		 Rural= 107 (58.4%)
Urban= 76 (41.5%)		 0.86
Parity (mean ± SD) 2.06±2.08 1.56±0.5 1.36±0.48 0.06
Comorbidities Previous cesarean section (n/ %) Yes- 10 (16.1%) Yes- 30 (24.7%) Yes- 46 (25.1%) 0.32
Immunosuppression (n/ %) Yes- 20 (32.2%) Yes- 17 (14%) Yes- 10 (5.4%) <0.001
UHN (n/ %) Yes- 53 (85.4%) Yes- 33 (27.2%) Yes- 0 (0%) <0.001
UHN grade (n/ %)* I- 12 (22.7%)
II- 34 (64.1%)
III- 7 (13.2%)		 I- 6 (18.8%)
II- 20 (60.6%)
III- 3 (21.2%)		 - <0.001
UHN location (n/ %)* Left- 9 (16.9%)
Right- 31 (58.4%)
Bilateral-13 (24.5%)		 Left- 7 (21.2%)
Right- 23 (69.6%)
Bilateral-3 (9%)		 - <0.001
Nephrolithiasis (n/ %) Yes- 9 (14.5%) Yes- 7 (5.7%) - 0.04
Pyelonephritis (n/ %) Yes- 35 (56.4%) Yes- 0 (0%) - <0.001
Double-J ureteric stenting Yes- 14 (22.5%) Yes- 6 (4.9%) - <0.001
Gestational age at diagnosis, weeks (mean ± SD) 25.47±6.29 29.17±5.44 - 0.010
Time interval from symptoms to admission, days (mean ± SD) 5.00±1.72 2.78±1.31 - <0.001
Pregnancy outcomes Type of birth (n/ %) Cesarean- 41 (66.1%)
Vaginal- 21 (33.8%)		 Cesarean- 83 (68.5%)
Vaginal- 38 (31.4%)		 Cesarean- 116 (63.3%)
Vaginal- 67 (36.6%)		 0.88
Gender (n/ %) Female- 27 (43.5%)
Male- 35 (56.4%)		 Female- 73 (60.3%)
Male- 48 (39.6%)		 Female- 71 (38.7%)
Male- 112 (61.2%)		 0.14
Birthweight, g (mean ± SD) 2938.8±693.67 3037.2±509.3 3236.11±398.5 0.068
Apgar score at 1 minute (mean ± SD) 7.69±1.68 8.14±1.98 8.47±0.73 0.11
Gestational age at birth (mean ± SD) 36.2±2.93 37.5±2.04 38.5±1.13 0.03
Preterm birth (n/ %) Yes- 17 (27.4%) Yes- 16 (13.2%) Yes- 10 (5.4%) < 0.001
Premature rupture of membranes (n/ %) Yes- 14 (22.5%) Yes- 6 (4.9%) Yes- 8 (4.3%) < 0.001
Fetal growth restriction (n/ %) Yes- 8 (12.9%) Yes- 13 (10.7%) Yes- 15 (8.1%) 0.51
Preeclampsia (n/ %) Yes- 6 (9.6%) Yes- 6 (4.9%) Yes- 1 (0.5%) 0.001
Thrombotic complications (n/ %) Yes- 3 (4.8%) Yes- 3 (2.4%) Yes- 1 (0.5%) 0.08
NICU admission (n/ %) Yes- 17 (27.4%) Yes- 19 (15.7%) Yes- 8 (4.3%) < 0.001
ARDS (n/ %) Yes- 8 (12.9%) Yes- 11 (9.09%) Yes- 6 (3.2%) 0.01
Fetal death No fetal death was recorded
Neonatal infections (n/ %) Yes- 7 (11.2%) Yes- 15 (12.3%) Yes- 15 (8.1%) 0.46
Post-partum UTI (n/ %) Yes= 20 (32.2%) Yes- 7 (5.7%) Yes- 3 (1.6%) <0.001
Post-partum vaginal infections (n/ %) Yes= 14 (22.5%) Yes- 4 (3.3%) Yes- 16 (8.7%) <0.001
Table legend: UTI- urinary tract infection; SD- standard deviation; UHN- ureterohydronephrosis; NICU- neonatal intensive care unit; ARDS- acute respiratory distress syndrome.
Table 2. Paraclinical characteristics of the patients with urological disorders during admission to urology department.
Table 2. Paraclinical characteristics of the patients with urological disorders during admission to urology department.
Variable Group 1 (n= 62 patients with urosepsis) Group 2 (n= 121 patients with uncomplicated UTI) P value
Pretreatment leukocyte number/mm3 (mean ± SD) 18,916.67± 3356.74 14,691± 2636.38 <0.001
Posttreatment leukocyte number/mm3 (mean ± SD) 15,672.78± 3582.62 12,177.78± 2076.41 <0.001
Pretreatment CRP value, mg/dl (mean ± SD) 131.38± 70.72 81.7± 70.34 0.004
Posttreatment CRP value, mg/dl (mean ± SD) 88.30± 56.34 63.49± 44.02 0.041
Pretreatment eGFR, mL/min/1.73m2 (mean ± SD) 63.16± 24.27 - -
Posttreatment eGFR, mL/min/1.73m2 (mean ± SD) 84.78± 27.85 - -
Procalcitonin, ng/mL (mean ± SD) 5.22± 1.35 - -
qSOFA (mean ± SD) 2.25± 0.64 - -
Table legend: UTI- urinary tract infection; SD- standard deviation; CRP- C- reactive protein; eGFR- estimated glomerular filtration rate; qSOFA- quick sepsis-related organ failure assessment.
Table 3. Results from conditional logistic model including patients with urological disorders and adverse pregnancy outcomes.
Table 3. Results from conditional logistic model including patients with urological disorders and adverse pregnancy outcomes.
Adverse pregnancy outcome aOR 95% confidence interval lower limit 95% confidence interval upper limit P value
Preterm birth 2.47 1.15 5.33 0.02
PPROM 5.59 2.02 15.40 < 0.001
IUGR 1.23 0.48 3.14 0.66
Preeclampsia 2.07 0.63 6.65 0.22
NICU 2.02 0.96 4.26 0.06
ARDS 1.48 0.56 3.89 0.42
Table legend: aOR- adjusted odds ratio; UTI- urinary tract infection; PPROM- premature rupture of membranes; IUGR- intrauterine growth restriction; NICU- neonatal intensive care unit admission; ARDS- acute respiratory distress syndrome.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.
Copyright: This open access article is published under a Creative Commons CC BY 4.0 license, which permit the free download, distribution, and reuse, provided that the author and preprint are cited in any reuse.
Prerpints.org logo

Preprints.org is a free preprint server supported by MDPI in Basel, Switzerland.

facebook logotwitter logolinkedin logo
MDPI Initiatives
Important Links
Subscribe

Disclaimer

Terms of Use

Privacy Policy

© 2024 MDPI (Basel, Switzerland) unless otherwise stated